Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01419/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01419-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Gerard Horn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1419

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Robert Gerard Horn, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 1, 2004

Filed: October 12, 2004

___________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following our remand in United States v. Horn, 76 Fed. Appx. 747 (8th Cir.

Aug. 26, 2003) (unpublished per curiam), the district court1

 determined that when

Robert Gerard Horn signed a document agreeing to modifications to the conditions

of his supervised release, his waiver of his right to a pre-modification hearing with

the assistance of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Horn appeals

again, and, having reviewed the record, which includes the hearing testimony of two

probation officers who were present when Horn signed the waiver, we find no error

Appellate Case: 04-1419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2004 Entry ID: 1820470 
-2-

in the district court’s conclusion. See United States v. Stocks, 104 F.3d 308, 312 (9th

Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 904 (1997). Although the district

court found that Horn had waived his hearing rights, the court nevertheless afforded

Horn a hearing with the assistance of counsel and a chance to oppose the new

conditions. Given the testimony of Horn’s psychological counselor at the hearing

that the new conditions were necessary to protect the community and were needed for

Horn’s rehabilitation, we conclude the district did not abuse its discretion in adopting

the proposed modifications. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (after considering designated

factors, district court may “modify, reduce, or enlarge the conditions of supervised

release . . . pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure”);

United States v. Davies, 380 F.3d 329, 332 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review;

district courts enjoy broad discretion in imposition or modification of conditions for

terms of supervised release). Horn’s remaining contentions on appeal are meritless.

See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(1) (requirements for modification of supervised release

conditions). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2004 Entry ID: 1820470