United States v. Robert Jackson, 691 F. App'x 595

Robert Jackson, pro se, moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) to modify several supervised-release conditions; the district court denied the motion.
Jackson appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by failing to explain the denial and by not considering the § 3553(a) factors.
On appeal Jackson also contended (for the first time) that some conditions were substantively unreasonable, unconstitutional, and were imposed procedurally unreasonably.
The Eleventh Circuit treated the standard of review as abuse of discretion (analogous to § 3563(c) probation-modification review).
The court evaluated whether the record reflected consideration of § 3553(a) factors and whether Jackson’s late challenges to the legality/reasonableness of conditions could be raised via § 3583(e)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by failing to consider § 3553(a) factors or to explain denial	Jackson: court failed to consider § 3553(a) and provided inadequate reasoning	Government: court need not explicitly recite § 3553(a) if record shows consideration; short order was sufficient	Affirmed — no abuse; record reflected consideration even though order was short
Whether alleged unconstitutional or substantively unreasonable conditions can be challenged via § 3583(e)(2)	Jackson: may challenge legality/reasonableness through § 3583(e)(2) modification motion	Government: Eleventh Circuit lacks precedent allowing such collateral challenges via § 3583(e)(2); other Circuits disallow it	Affirmed — Jackson raised legality for first time on appeal; plain-error review and no on-point precedent, so no relief
Whether the procedural imposition of conditions was unreasonable	Jackson: conditions were imposed procedurally unreasonably	Government: procedural challenge not preserved; court lacked jurisdiction to modify on illegality grounds via § 3583(e)(2)	Affirmed — procedural challenge not preserved and plain-error standard not satisfied
Standard of review for § 3583(e)(2) denial	Jackson: sought reversal of denial as an abuse of discretion	Government: analogous to § 3563(c) probation-modification standard	Applied abuse-of-discretion standard (same as § 3563(c)); reversal only for clear error

United States v. Serrapio, 754 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2014) (probation-modification denials reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion reversal standard described)
United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936 (11th Cir. 2007) (record can show consideration of § 3553(a) even if not explicitly stated)
United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 1997) (§ 3583(e)(2) does not permit modification based on illegality of condition)
United States v. Hatten, 167 F.3d 884 (5th Cir. 1999) (district court lacks jurisdiction to modify supervised-release condition on illegality grounds via § 3583)
United States v. Gross, 307 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (illegality is not a proper ground for modification under § 3583(e)(2))
United States v. Carpenter, 803 F.3d 1224 (11th Cir. 2015) (plain-error review applies to arguments raised first on appeal)
United States v. Hoffman, 710 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2013) (error is not plain absent on-point precedent)