United States v. Kelvin Bree, 927 F.3d 856

Background

In October 2017 Bree was stopped at a U.S.–Mexico checkpoint; agents found marijuana and cocaine and he pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute.
PSR documented long-term past substance use (alcohol from age 14, heavy cocaine use 1988–1998) and a single suicide attempt around age 18–19; no documented psychiatric diagnosis.
District court sentenced Bree to 70 months imprisonment and 4 years supervised release, imposing two special conditions: (1) substance-abuse treatment (in-abstinence), and (2) mental-health treatment “because of [his] substance problems” (including paying for prescribed medication).
Bree appealed only the mental-health special condition, claiming it was unsupported by the record.
Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain error (Bree did not object below), examined whether the mental-health condition was reasonably related to § 3553(a) factors and not more restrictive than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).
Court concluded the record lacked evidence of a questionable mental-health history or diagnosis to justify a mental-health treatment condition and therefore struck that condition but affirmed the remainder of the sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court may impose a court-ordered mental-health treatment condition based solely on a history of substance abuse	Bree: Mental-health condition was unsupported by the record; PSR did not show diagnosis or recent mental instability	Gov: Bree’s substance problems (and job loss leading to possible depression), plus PSR recommendation, justified condition	Court: Reversed — substance abuse alone, without evidence of a mental-health disorder or recent mental instability, cannot justify a mental-health special condition; struck the condition
Whether the imposition of the mental-health condition affected substantial rights under plain-error review	Bree: Condition required payment, time commitment, and risked stigma — affecting financial resources, autonomy, reputation	Gov: Bree likely could not be made to pay given limited means, and the condition could be modified later	Court: Condition affected substantial rights (time, money, privacy/stigma); government’s arguments insufficient
Whether the error warrants correction under the fourth plain-error prong	Bree: Erroneous condition implicates autonomy and privacy and harms fairness/integrity	Gov: Prior precedents allowed similar conditions; modification later possible	Court: Exercised discretion to correct error — struck condition because it implicates significant autonomy/privacy interests and record did not justify it
Appropriate remedy where only one special condition is invalid	Bree: Strike the mental-health condition; no resentencing necessary	Gov: Condition could be modified later; remand not required	Court: Modified sentence by striking the mental-health condition and affirmed the rest of the sentence

Key Cases Cited

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review standard)
United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2015) (sentencing reasons must be factual and tailored)
United States v. Gordon, 838 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2016) (mental-health condition requires record evidence of questionable mental health or diagnosis)
United States v. Alvarez, 880 F.3d 236 (5th Cir. 2018) (broad discretion on conditions but limits and modification not dispositive)
Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (guidance on plain-error fourth prong analysis)
United States v. Mendoza-Velasquez, 847 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2017) (contrast case where condition left intact; distinguished here)
United States v. Salazar, 743 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014) (appellate independent review of record for justification of conditions)
United States v. De Jesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154 (5th Cir. 2005) (remedy: modify sentence by striking invalid condition)
United States v. Fields, 247 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (same)