United States v. Pacheco-Donelson, 893 F.3d 757

Background

Pacheco-Donelson was on supervised release, was arrested for violating its terms, and after revocation was sentenced to 8 months imprisonment and 2 years’ supervised release with prior special conditions reimposed, including a ban on associating with gang members.
He objected at the revocation hearing only insofar as the ban covered two of his foster brothers; the probation officer expressed concern because the foster brothers were gang-affiliated.
The district court overruled the objection, stating it would not permit knowing association with gang members even if the persons were relatives.
On appeal Pacheco-Donelson argued (1) the special condition was procedurally unreasonable because the court failed to make adequate findings, and (2) the condition was substantively unreasonable as applied to the two foster brothers.
The record included a presentence report noting the foster brothers’ incarceration, the foster mother’s abandonment of them, Pacheco-Donelson’s gang membership beginning at age 10 and overlapping residency with the foster brothers, and evidence he continued gang associations and purchased a gun related to gang threats.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness: did court fail to make adequate findings for the special condition?	Pacheco-Donelson: court failed to make requisite findings; familial-association interest requires particularized findings.	Government: defendant didn’t preserve a procedures-based objection; court relied on probation’s concerns and record.	No plain error: objection was not preserved; even assuming error, no reasonable probability different result given record and probation officer’s remarks.
Whether foster-sibling association is a protected familial right triggering heightened finding requirement	Pacheco-Donelson: foster-sibling bond merits protection, requiring compelling justification.	Government: no controlling precedent; even if a right exists, defendant produced no evidence of a close protected relationship.	Court assumed possible right for argument’s sake but found no evidence of close relationship so particularized findings were not required.
Substantive reasonableness of banning association with the two foster brothers	Pacheco-Donelson: no evidence they were in same gang, no link between brothers and underlying offense, uncertain if they remain gang members.	Government: ban is reasonably related to his history, deterrence, and public protection; probation office supported the condition.	Condition is substantively reasonable and not an abuse of discretion—reasonably related to 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors and no greater deprivation of liberty than necessary.
Scope and tailoring (whether ban improperly applied if brothers no longer gang members)	Pacheco-Donelson: condition may be overbroad if brothers aren’t gang members now.	Government: condition applies only to gang members; probation can permit contact where appropriate.	Court upheld the condition as drafted; it only prohibits association if the individuals are gang members and the probation officer’s role mitigates overbreadth concerns.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Burns, 775 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2014) (heightened findings required when special condition infringes a fundamental right)
United States v. Martinez-Torres, 795 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2015) (generalized reasons required when no constitutional interest implicated)
United States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686 (10th Cir. 2011) (plain-error and abuse-of-discretion standards discussion)
United States v. Muñoz, 812 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 2016) (upholding supervised-release restrictions to reduce recidivism risk)
United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2018) (upholding ban on associating with gang members to prevent relapse into crime)
United States v. White, 782 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 2015) (burden on non-custodial relative to show familial relationship merits constitutional protection)
Trujillo v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 768 F.2d 1186 (10th Cir. 1985) (constitutional protection for sibling association)
United States v. Jones, 798 F.3d 613 (7th Cir. 2015) (permissible reliance on probation’s risk assessment)
United States v. Mendoza, 543 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2008) (preservation requirement for procedural objections)
United States v. Courtney, 816 F.3d 681 (10th Cir. 2016) (consideration of plain-error argument raised in reply brief)