United States v. Kenneth C. Sandidge, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12751

Kenneth Sandidge pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) after officers found a loaded revolver during an investigation of an attempted sexual assault.
District court originally sentenced Sandidge to 92 months imprisonment plus two years supervised release; his drinking history was relevant to the offense and probation recommended a broad substance restriction.
On first appeal, this Court affirmed most rulings but vacated and remanded for resentencing because the district court failed to provide the particularized explanation required for supervised-release conditions and concluded a prior “mood-altering substances” condition was overbroad.
On remand the district court replaced the prior condition with a prohibition on “excessive use of alcohol,” defining that to include binge drinking, heavy drinking (15+ drinks/week), BAC ≥ 0.08, any use that “adversely affects [the] defendant’s employment, relationships, or ability to comply with the conditions of supervision,” or alcohol-related legal violations.
Sandidge objected that the “adversely affects” clause is unconstitutionally vague; the district court overruled the objection and the case returns to the Seventh Circuit solely on that vagueness challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the phrase “any use of alcohol that adversely affects [the] defendant’s employment, relationships, or ability to comply with the conditions of supervision” is unconstitutionally vague	The “adversely affects” language is open-ended and indeterminate, fails to give fair notice, and permits arbitrary enforcement	Government contends the overall definition (including numeric drink limits, BAC threshold, and illegal conduct) clarifies and limits the clause; prior dicta did not reject the language	The Court finds the phrase vague as written but cures vagueness by adding “materially”; it modifies the condition to prohibit alcohol use that “materially adversely affects” the listed interests and affirms as modified

United States v. Sandidge, 784 F.3d 1055 (7th Cir. 2015) (prior appeal that remanded for resentencing and criticized overbroad supervised-release conditions)
United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (circuit guidance on explaining supervised-release conditions)
United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (same line of supervisory-release explanation cases)
United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2014) (vacated broad “mood-altering substances” condition and questioned “adversely affects” language)
United States v. Baker, 755 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2014) (discussed alcohol prohibition conditions and reserved judgment on ‘‘adversely affects’’ language)
United States v. Bickart, 825 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard for reviewing supervised-release conditions for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Kahn, 771 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2014) (de novo review for vagueness challenges to conditions)
United States v. Jones, 689 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2012) (vagueness doctrine protects fair notice and prevents arbitrary enforcement)
Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316 (2002) (upheld use of “material” modifier as sufficiently definite to cure vagueness concerns)