United States v. Michael Sharp
469 F. App'x 523
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Sharp, a convicted sex offender, appeals several conditions of supervised release imposed after his felon firearm possession plea.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands.
- The district court relied on an uncontested PSR for factual basis without specific objections from Sharp.
- The court imposed a sex offender evaluation and treatment condition; these were later deemed unsupported and vacated on remand.
- Three restrictions about access to minors were challenged; one was found overbroad and vacated, with remand to tailor permissions via the probation officer.
- A standard prohibition on associating with known felons, particularly with Sharp’s wife, was found to require justification and was vacated to the extent it barred contact with his wife.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did PSR reliance without objections justify the conditions? | Sharp's objections to PSR facts were not raised. | Court may rely on undisputed PSR statements. | Yes; district court may rely on undisputed PSR facts. |
| Are the sex offender evaluation and treatment conditions supported by the record? | Conditions lack apparent justification and individualized basis. | Conditions may be imposed with record-supported justification. | Vacated; remanded for specific, record-supported justification. |
| Is the 100-foot residency/loitering restriction around minors overly broad? | Restriction is too broad and lacks tailoring or exemptions. | Restriction serves public safety; tailoring not necessary here. | Vacated; remanded to tailor with probation officer permission. |
| Does the no-contact-with-known-felons condition improperly bar contact with Sharp's wife without explanation? | Condition infringes liberty interests without individualized findings. | Condition is appropriate; no need for wife-specific exception noted. | Vacated to extent it prohibits contact with wife; may reimpose with wife exception or adequate justification. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (regarding Rule 32 objections and reliance on PSR)
- United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (district court may rely on undisputed PSR statements at sentencing)
- United States v. Betts, 511 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2007) (conditions must be based on individualized assessment)
- United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2010) (tailoring restrictions with probation officer approval)
- United States v. Rudd, 662 F.3d 1257 (9th Cir. 2011) (remand where condition appears arbitrary or inadequately justified)
- United States v. Napulou, 593 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (liberty interest in relation to life partner conditions; need for explanation)
- United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2008) (consider present circumstances and relationship for contact restrictions)
- United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2006) (tailoring of contact restrictions where liberty interest is strong)
- United States v. T.M., 330 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasonableness and supportedness of supervised-release conditions)