United States v. Sims
92 F.4th 115
2d Cir.2024Background
- Dewey K. Sims pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
- The district court (N.D.N.Y.) imposed supervised release with a special condition barring association with any member, associate, or prospect of the Jungle Junkies or any other criminal gang, club, or organization.
- This special non-association condition was based on PSR statements that relied on an NCIC record, which Sims disputed and which lacked evidence of any actual gang-related conviction or activity.
- Sims objected to the special condition, arguing it was unnecessary given a standard condition already prohibited interaction with those involved in criminal activity or known felons.
- The district court provided limited on-record explanation, generally citing the PSR and erring "on the side of caution," while admitting Sims's gang affiliation was unclear.
- Sims appealed, arguing the condition was unsupported, overbroad, and vague; the Second Circuit vacated the condition and remanded for further findings or clarification.
Issues
| Issue | Sims's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of support and individualized assessment for special non-association condition | No record evidence or explanation connects Sims to a gang or justifies the condition; standard non-association condition suffices | PSR's NCIC indication justifies caution; promotes rehabilitation and is justified by facts in PSR | Condition vacated; record and explanation inadequate, not self-evident, and not sufficiently individualized |
| Overbreadth and vagueness of the condition | Prohibition sweeps too broadly and vaguely, infringing on liberty and failing due process | Condition reasonably helps rehabilitation, is sufficiently clear, and not unconstitutionally vague | Not reached; case resolved on lack of support/individualized assessment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Eaglin, 913 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019) (special conditions require individualized assessment and record support)
- United States v. Betts, 886 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2018) (record/self-evidence needed if explanation for special condition is lacking)
- United States v. Matta, 777 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2015) (special condition must not deprive more liberty than necessary)
- United States v. MacMillen, 544 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2008) (courts have wide latitude but limited by statutes and record)
- United States v. Myers, 426 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2005) (special condition's effect on liberty must be narrowly tailored and justified)
- United States v. Salazar, 723 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2013) (need for individualized, record-supported explanation for special conditions)