United States v. Lee Farley
696 F. App'x 210
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Farley pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and possession of a stolen firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(j)).
- District court sentenced Farley to 76 months imprisonment and three years supervised release.
- The contested supervised release special conditions at issue: Special Condition Four (financial disclosures), Special Condition Eight (no association with gang members; restrictions on clothing/colors), and Special Condition Ten (geographic restriction in San Francisco).
- Farley challenged his prison sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable and attacked the three special conditions on multiple constitutional and discretionary grounds.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the sentence and the challenged conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Special Condition Four (financial disclosure) – relation to offense/history | Farley: not reasonably related to offense or his history/characteristics | Government: condition relates to chronic unemployment and criminal history; furthers deterrence, protection, rehabilitation | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion |
| Special Condition Ten (geographic exclusion) – relation to offense/history | Farley: area restriction not reasonably related to offense/history | Government: Farley has history of crimes in the restricted area; restriction furthers sentencing goals | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion |
| Special Condition Eight (gang-association, clothing/colors) — procedural protections for intimate associations | Farley: court failed to make special findings required when liberty interests implicated (associating with brothers) | Government: Farley did not object at sentencing or present evidence showing intimate relationship; plain-error review fails | Affirmed — no plain error |
| Special Condition Eight — due process/overbreadth and mens rea | Farley: terms are overbroad and permit presumption of illicit intent, violating due process | Government: condition should be read to include a knowing element; presumption does not reduce government burden at revocation | Affirmed — condition construed to require knowing conduct; presumption has no effect on government’s burden |
| Special Condition Eight — substantive reasonableness | Farley: condition is substantively unreasonable/not supported by record | Government: condition aims to prevent future gang involvement supported by record | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion |
| Overall sentence — procedural and substantive reasonableness | Farley: court failed to give weight to post-release positive changes and to credit time served in state prison | Government: court considered and rejected these arguments; within district court’s §3553(a) discretion | Affirmed — 76-month sentence reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2003) (conditions of supervised release need not relate to the offense if they serve deterrence, protection, or rehabilitation)
- United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding geographic and association conditions when related to defendant’s history)
- United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (additional procedural findings required when a condition implicates a particularly significant liberty interest)
- United States v. Napulou, 593 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (analysis of intimate relationships in supervised-release contexts)
- United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2008) (construing supervised-release conditions to include a mens rea/knowing element)
- United States v. Perez, 526 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2008) (government’s burden at supervised-release revocation is preponderance of the evidence)
- United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding conditions aimed at preventing future gang involvement)
- United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2010) (deference to district court’s §3553(a) factfinding and reasonableness determinations)
- United States v. Johnson, 626 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Gutierrez–Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court discretion in weighing sentencing factors)