Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60778/USCOURTS-ca5-15-60778-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jordan Jim
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60778

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORDAN JIM,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:11-CR-4-1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Jordan Jim appeals a special condition of 

supervised release that was imposed following the revocation of his supervised 

release. The district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting Jim from 

using social media applications and websites. See United States v. Ellis, 720 

F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2013). The record indicates that the district court 

imposed this condition because Jim used Facebook to convey a threatening 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60778 Document: 00513562287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2016
No. 15-60778

2

message and ultimately committed an assault and battery that was 

precipitated by his anger related to Facebook comments. See United States v. 

Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 275 (5th Cir. 2015). The prohibition on social media 

is therefore reasonably related to the nature and circumstances of one of his 

supervised release violations and his history and characteristics, the need for 

deterrence of criminal conduct, and the need to protect the public from further 

crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1). The condition does not impose a “greater 

deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to deter Jim and protect 

the public. See § 3583(d)(2). The condition is narrowed in both scope and time: 

Jim is only prohibited from using social media, as distinguished from the entire 

internet, and he is prohibited from doing so for five years only. 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-60778 Document: 00513562287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2016