United States v. Speed
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 854
7th Cir.2016Background
- Rico and Jermaine Speed, cousins, were convicted of crack distribution and related firearm offenses in Illinois federal cases.
- Judge Colin Bruce varied downward and sentenced each to 216 months (18 years) imprisonment with mandatory eight years of supervised release.
- Probation read and the court adopted standard supervised-release conditions from the PSRs.
- The court imposed three conditions: (i) no meeting or interacting with known felons unless approved by the probation officer; (ii) participate in alcohol treatment with testing and abstain from alcohol; (iii) no possession of firearms, ammunition, or other dangerous weapons.
- The Speeds appealed contending the felon-contact, alcohol, and weapons restrictions were improper in various ways.
- The panel affirmed the conditions, addressing waiver, standards of review, and the reasonableness of each condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Speeds waived their right to appeal supervised-release conditions | Speeds did not expressly approve conditions; no waiver. | Government asserts waiver under Garcia-Segura based on generalized questions. | No waiver; neither Speed waived rights. |
| Standard of review for contested vs uncontested conditions | Review should be abuse of discretion for contested, plain error for uncontested. | Plain-error would apply when no objection. | Abuse of discretion for contested; plain-error for uncontested; open question clarified with advance-notice considerations. |
| Reasonableness of contact-with-felons restriction | Restriction overly broad and infringes association rights. | Restriction appropriately targets risk and is revocable with probation approval. | Affirmed; condition reasonably relates to offender history and protection, with a scienter element and a probation-approval mechanism. |
| Validity of alcohol abstinence, testing, and treatment conditions | Conflict between oral sentence and written judgment; testing unnecessary. | Testing and treatment are appropriate given prior alcohol issues and drug use. | |
| Affirmed; written judgment aligns with oral statements; testing and abstinence are proper conditions. | |||
| Notice and scope of the dangerous-weapon restriction | Notified by enumerated Guideline condition; no express discussion at sentencing. | Restriction is reasonable given felon status and past weapon offenses; not vague. | Affirmed; notice adequate; restriction relates to history and public protection; not vague. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, 788 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2015) (establishes standard for procedural findings on release conditions)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (condition clarity regarding association with felons)
- United States v. Hinds, 770 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2014) (open question on standard when no objection; applied depending on outcome)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (advance notice when condition not in statute/guidelines; abuse of discretion if unnoted)
- United States v. Garcia-Segura, 717 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2013) (clarifies waiver analysis when defense says no to further elaboration)
- United States v. Donelli, 747 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2014) (discusses Garcia-Segura waiver framework)
- United States v. Armour, 804 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2015) (dangerous-weapon notices and notice sufficiency)
- United States v. Schoenbom, 4 F.3d 1424 (7th Cir. 1993) (ambit of dangerous-weapon category and object usage)
- United States v. Rangel, 350 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2003) (trial objections and plain-error review analogies)
- United States v. Sandoval, 347 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2003) (plain-error review parallels in appellate review)