At page 143 Determining appropriate supervised release conditions and plain error6 citing cases
- United States v. David Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2016).published See United States v. Asuncion-Pimental, 290 F.3d 91, 94-95 (2d Cir.2002) (possession of a firearm by a felon); United States v. Morey, 120 F.3d 142, 143 (8th Cir.1997) (same).
- United States v. Thomas Joel Maggard, 250 F. App'x 755 (8th Cir. 2007).unpublishedAfter reviewing the unobjectedto special conditions of supervised release for plain error, see United States v. Morey, 120 F.3d 142, 143 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (standard of review), we further conclude the conditions, are supported by…
- United States v. Robert Asuncion-Pimental, 290 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2002).publishedIn this context, the specific condition that Defendant not possess a firearm is largely only a clarification of the more general mandatory condition that he not break the law. 3 Cf. United States v. Morey, 120 F.3d 142, 143 (8th Cir.1997)…
- United States v. Robert W.S. Skogstad, 141 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 1998).unpublishedSee U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3(b) (1997) (factors to consider in imposing conditions of supervised release); United States v. Morey, 120 F.3d 142, 143 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (standard of review). 4 Finally, Skogstad's c…
- United States v. Robert Skogstad, No. 97-1733 (8th Cir. Mar. 30, 1998).unpublishedSee U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3(b) (1997) (factors to consider in imposing conditions of supervised release); United States v. Morey, 120 F.3d 142, 143 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (standard of review). -2- Finally, Skogstad&…
- United States v. Christopher Schmidt, 102 F. App'x 517 (8th Cir. 2004).unpublishedSee United States v. Morey, 120 F.3d 142, 143 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam).
v.
Jerry Alan MOREY, Defendant-Appellant
Jerry Morey pleaded guilty to theft of mail by a postal employee. The district court [1] sentenced him to eight months in prison and three years of supervised release. Morey now appeals two special conditions of his supervised release. As he did not object to these conditions at sentencing, we are limited to plain error review. See United, States v. Iversen, 90 F.3d 1340, 1343 (8th Cir.1996).
First, Morey argues that requiring him to “participate, as instructed by the probation officer, in a program ... for treatment of narcotic addiction or drug dependency” improperly transfers to the probation officer the duty of the court to establish periodic drug testing, one of the conditions mandated in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). We disagree. Section 3583(d) authorizes the district court to impose discretionary supervised release conditions. Morey is a long-term drug addict who stole to feed his addiction. His sentence mandates five hundred hours of drug treatment while he is in prison. Giving the probation officer authority to require additional drug treatment during supervised release is an appropriate discretionary condition that goes beyond the drug testing mandated by § 3583(d). Similar conditions have been imposed in prior cases. See United States v. Schoenrock, 868 F.2d 289, 290 n. 3 (8th Cir.1989).
Second, Morey argues that the condition forbidding him to own or possess a firearm while on supervised release is invalid because it is unrelated to his offense. However, § 3583(d) mandates the explicit condition that he not commit a crime during supervised release. Morey is now a convicted felon who may not lawfully possess a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). By clarifying a portion of the mandatory condition that he not commit a crime, this condition would seem to benefit Morey. In any event, its imposition cannot be plain error. See U.S.S.G. § 5B1.4(b)(14).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
. The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DAVIS, United Slates District Judge for the District of Minnesota.