Submitted: November 13, 2017
from United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri - St. Louis
COLLOTON, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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."
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 ...