United States v. David Bell
915 F.3d 574
8th Cir.2019Background
- Defendant David Bell pleaded guilty under a binding plea agreement to conspiracy to distribute marijuana and conspiracy to commit money laundering; agreement called for 15 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release and included an appellate waiver with specified exceptions.
- The presentence report noted occasional alcohol use and regular past marijuana use; neither side objected to those factual statements.
- At sentencing the district court imposed two special conditions not in the plea agreement: (1) total ban on alcohol and prohibition on entering establishments where alcohol is primary; (2) a nightly curfew from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
- The district court justified both conditions by citing general experience that offenders who drink and stay out late violate supervised release, without making individualized findings specific to Bell.
- Bell objected to the alcohol ban at sentencing and appealed both special conditions; the court of appeals considered whether the appellate waiver barred review and then reviewed the conditions for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bell) | Defendant's Argument (Gov.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate waiver bars Bell from challenging special conditions | Waiver does not bar challenge because special conditions were not in the plea agreement and thus the sentence is "other than" the agreed sentence | Waiver precludes review because agreement disclaims appeals for misapplication of Guidelines or abuse of discretion | Waiver does not bar review; special conditions are part of the sentence and fall within the "other than" exception |
| Whether alcohol ban was permissible | Ban is invalid because court made no individualized findings of drug dependence or cross-addiction risk; record shows only occasional alcohol use and unspecified marijuana use | Court may impose alcohol bans where history or crime supports restriction and to guard against cross-addiction | Vacated: court abused discretion by relying on generalizations rather than individualized findings; record did not establish dependence or cross-addiction risk |
| Whether curfew was permissible | Curfew invalid because court cited general experience and made no individualized finding tying curfew to public protection or rehabilitation needs | Curfew is within discretion to protect public or aid rehabilitation based on court’s experience | Vacated: court abused discretion; insufficient individualized findings and record did not justify curfew |
| Standard and required findings for special conditions | Conditions must be reasonably related to 18 U.S.C. §3553(a), no greater deprivation than necessary, and consistent with Sentencing Commission policy; require individualized findings | Same standard; government argues deference to sentencing court’s experience | Court applied standard: found abuse of discretion due to lack of individualized findings and inadequate record support |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Seizys, 864 F.3d 930 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard for reviewing validity of appellate waiver)
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (plea-agreement waivers construed against government; special conditions are part of sentence)
- United States v. Forde, 664 F.3d 1219 (8th Cir. 2012) (standards for alcohol bans and review for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490 (8th Cir. 2011) (requirement of individualized findings for special conditions)
- United States v. Robertson, 709 F.3d 741 (8th Cir. 2013) (upholding total alcohol bans where defendant’s history supports restriction)
- United States v. Walters, 643 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 2011) (vacating alcohol ban where history/crime did not support it)
- United States v. Woodall, 782 F.3d 383 (8th Cir. 2015) (defining drug dependence and limits of cross-addiction justification)
- United States v. Deatherage, 682 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2012) (conditions need not be vacated if rationale discernible from record)
- United States v. Asalati, 615 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2010) (upholding curfew where defendant showed repeated post-release criminality)
- United States v. Mack, [citation="455 F. App'x 714"] (8th Cir. 2012) (upholding curfew for repeated midnight DUI arrests)