United States v. Gary Robinson
670 F. App'x 848
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Gary E. Robinson pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender and was sentenced to supervised release with a special condition barring contact with children unless supervised by an adult approved by the probation officer.
- The district court found Robinson violated that condition (and three others), revoked supervised release, and sentenced him to prison followed by five more years of supervised release.
- On resentencing, the district court reimposed the special condition limiting contact with children, delegating to the probation officer the authority to approve any adult chaperone.
- Robinson appealed only the reimposition of that special condition, raising (1) an Article III/delegation challenge to the probation officer’s approval role and (2) a challenge that the condition unreasonably burdened his liberty and freedom of association.
- The government defended the condition as a permissible exercise of the court’s sentencing authority and characterized the probation officer’s role as approval of details, not a core judicial function.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delegating approval of chaperones to the probation officer violates Article III by delegating a core judicial function | Robinson: delegation to probation officer to determine suitable chaperone is an unconstitutional delegation | Government: judge made the legal decision to restrict contact; probation officer’s role is only to approve details of the condition | No plain error; delegation here is a permissible delegation of details, not core judicial authority (affirmed) |
| Whether the condition (no contact with children unless supervised by probation-approved adult) unreasonably infringes liberty/freedom of association | Robinson: the standard used by the probation officer is overbroad and imposes greater-than-necessary liberty deprivation and burdens association | Government: condition is limited in scope/duration and tailored to protect minors; approving a chaperone is not overbroad | Reviewed for abuse of discretion; court did not abuse its discretion—condition is not overly broad and is justified (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bishop, 603 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 2010) (upheld delegation to probation officer to determine ability to pay for treatment as a detail of supervised-release condition)
- United States v. Garcia-Perez, 779 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 2015) (preservation-of-error principles for appellate review)
- United States v. Bourgeois, 423 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2005) (plain-error review standards)
- United States v. Duke, 778 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2015) (upheld conditions limiting association with minors when appropriately limited in scope and duration)