United States v. Brent Lee
687 F. App'x 584
9th Cir.2017Background
- Lee, on supervised release, tested positive for alcohol twice despite a no-alcohol condition and prior substance-abuse treatment.
- The district court revoked Lee’s supervised release and sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment followed by a new term of supervised release.
- Lee argued for a below-Guidelines sentence of 12 months and 1 day and challenged several special and standard supervised-release conditions.
- The district court held multiple hearings, acknowledged Lee’s request for a lower sentence, and stated it had considered the PSR and SRDR.
- The court imposed a no-alcohol condition, substance-abuse treatment, delegation to probation to modify conditions as needed, several standard conditions, and a computer search condition.
- On appeal, the government conceded the computer-search condition lacked a record nexus; the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated the computer-search condition, and remanded for modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court failed to address Lee’s nonfrivolous request for a 12-month-and-1-day sentence | Lee: court should have explained rejection of his specific §3553(a)-based request | Gov: court stated it considered arguments and had reasoned basis to reject the request given history and conduct | Affirmed — court sufficiently considered and explained rejection under Carty/Rita framework |
| Whether no-alcohol and substance-abuse treatment conditions were permissible | Lee: conditions excessive or improperly imposed | Gov: conditions reasonably related to deterrence, protection, rehabilitation given positive alcohol tests and history | Affirmed — record supports both conditions as reasonably related and necessary |
| Whether delegation to probation or burden-shifting made conditions impermissibly vague or procedurally improper | Lee: delegation and implied burden to disprove need for treatment improper | Gov: probation’s continuing duty to tailor conditions; court relied on evidence of substance problem, not refusal to answer | Affirmed — delegation and no improper burden-shifting; discretion permissible per Quinzon and Betts distinction |
| Whether computer-search condition and five standard conditions were valid | Lee: search and some standard conditions overbroad/vague | Gov: standard conditions permissible; government conceded computer-search lacked nexus | Vacated in part and remanded — computer-search condition vacated for lack of nexus; five standard conditions upheld (no plain error) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (sentencing judge should explain acceptance/rejection of specific nonfrivolous §3553(a) arguments)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court must set forth enough to show consideration of parties’ arguments)
- United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2009) (supervised-release conditions must be reasonably related to deterrence, protection, or rehabilitation)
- United States v. Quinzon, 643 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2011) (probation officers’ continuing duty to modify conditions as circumstances change)
- United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2007) (discusses impermissible burden-shifting in imposing treatment conditions)
- United States v. Gonzales-Aparicio, 663 F.3d 419 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard conditions from Guidelines not plainly erroneous absent controlling precedent)
- United States v. Bare, 806 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2015) (condition allowing searches of computers requires a record nexus to legitimate supervised-release goals)