Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Thompson

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

April 20, 2018

United States of America, Plaintiff- Appellee,
v.
Hugo Barry Thompson, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted: November 13, 2017

          Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

          Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

          COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

         Hugo Thompson challenges seven special conditions of supervised release that the district court imposed after revoking Thompson's supervised release and imposing a new sentence. Thompson argues for the first time on appeal that the district court[1] imposed the conditions without making individualized findings and that the conditions are inconsistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). We conclude that there was no plain error and affirm the judgment.

         I.

         In 2007, a jury found Thompson guilty of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute fifty kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The district court sentenced Thompson to 96 months' imprisonment, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.

         While on supervised release, Thompson pleaded guilty in state court to sexual misconduct involving a child by indecent exposure. At a hearing before the district court on a petition to revoke supervised release, Thompson admitted that he had pleaded guilty to the sexual misconduct offense. The court found that Thompson had violated a condition of supervised release that prohibited him from committing any new federal, state, or local crime. Thompson also admitted two more violations: associating with a convicted felon and failing to notify his probation officer within seventy-two hours of his contact with law enforcement during the sexual misconduct investigation.

         The district court revoked Thompson's term of supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months' imprisonment, to be followed by an 18-month term of supervised release. The court also imposed ten special conditions on Thompson's supervised release, seven of which he challenges on appeal.

         II.

         Because Thompson did not object to the special conditions at his revocation hearing, we review for plain error. United States v. Davis, 452 F.3d 991, 994 (8th Cir. 2006). To obtain relief under this standard, Thompson must show that the district court made an obvious error that affected his substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993).

         Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), a district court has broad discretion to order a condition of supervised release, so long as it is reasonably related to the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary, and is consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Mark, 425 F.3d 505, 507 (8th Cir. 2005). The purposes set forth in § 3553(a) include "deterrence, protection of the public, and effective provision, in the most effective manner, of needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment to the defendant." Id.

         Thompson argues that the district court imposed the challenged conditions without providing a sufficient explanation of how the conditions satisfied the requirements of § 3583(d). For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that there was no plain error warranting relief. Although we encourage "detailed individual findings, where the basis for the special condition can be discerned from the record, the condition need not be vacated." United States v. Hart, 829 F.3d 606, 609 (8th Cir. 2016). On this record, Thompson cannot meet his burden to show that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.