United States v. Perez
666 F. App'x 735
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2011 Ranay Paul Perez pleaded guilty to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana; sentenced to 33 months and 3 years supervised release.
- After release, Perez violated multiple supervised-release conditions (missed reporting, failed to notify residence changes, absconded, missed hearings, used methamphetamine).
- In 2016 the district court revoked release and imposed nine months’ imprisonment followed by 25 months supervised release with a special search condition covering person, property, residence, papers, computers, electronic communications and storage devices.
- The search condition required reasonable suspicion that Perez violated a supervision condition and that searched areas contained evidence; searches must be reasonable in time and manner.
- Perez appealed only the special search condition, arguing it was not reasonably related to his offense or supervision violations and that the court failed to make particularized findings supporting the condition.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed the substantive imposition for abuse of discretion and reviewed any omitted particularized findings for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a search condition permitting searches of computers/electronic media is reasonably related to offense and supervision goals | Perez: computer/electronic searches are not reasonably related to his drug-trafficking conviction or supervised-release violations | Government: condition is related to Perez’s history (violations, drug use, absconding) and the goals of deterrence, public safety, and supervision | Upheld: condition reasonably related to defendant’s history and deterrence; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether district court needed particularized findings to impose the condition | Perez: court failed to make particularized findings tying the condition to a fundamental liberty interest | Government: no fundamental interest implicated; generalized reasoning suffices | Upheld: no fundamental liberty interest identified, so generalized, reasoned basis on record was sufficient (no plain error) |
| Whether the condition deprived Perez of more liberty than reasonably necessary | Perez: condition overly intrusive given scope (computers/electronic media) | Government: condition limits searches to reasonable-suspicion standard and reasonable manner/time, less intrusive than suspicionless searches previously upheld | Upheld: reasonable-suspicion requirement and supervision context render condition not greater deprivation than necessary |
| Whether the oral pronouncement/control or written judgment controls differences in language of condition | Perez: (implied challenge to variation) | Government: oral pronouncement controls per precedent | Held: oral pronouncement controls; no reversible error noted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Martinez-Torres, 795 F.3d 1233 (10th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for supervised-release condition challenges)
- United States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686 (10th Cir. 2011) (statutory requirements for supervised-release conditions under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d))
- United States v. Hanrahan, 508 F.3d 962 (10th Cir. 2007) (upholding suspicionless searches in supervision context)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court must provide a reasoned basis for sentencing decisions)
- United States v. Hahn, 551 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2008) (generalized statement of reasoning sufficient when no fundamental interest implicated)
- United States v. Burns, 775 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2014) (particularized findings required when a condition intrudes on a fundamental liberty interest)
- Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (convicted felons on supervised release have diminished liberty interests)