F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT A pril 3 0, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1011 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 00 27 5- CR-T-1 7EAJ UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROGER D. VICKERY, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 30, 200 7) Be fo re CA RN E S, W IL SO N and H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

A ft er Ro ge r D
. V ic ke ry

ple ad ed gui lty to one c ount

of “ es ca pe f ro m cu sto dy ” in v iol at ionof

18 U
. S. C. § 75 1( a) , the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed him to a 15- m onth pr iso n se nte nc e an d to a36- m onth pe ri od o f supe rv ise d r el ea se . I n th is appeal, he contests th ree aspects of his sup ervised relea se: (1) the c ondi tion th at he f ile se ve ra l pa st t axr et

ur ns and p ay

c er ta in y ears ’ ba ck

ta xe s; (2 ) the pr ovi sio n

“ authoriz[ing] the probation officer to [conduct] random

drug testing not to exceed 104 te sts pe r y ear” ; and ( 3) the r ea sona ble ne ss o f the sup er

vis ed r el ea se te rm

in ge ne ra l. F or

r ea sons w e w ill dis cu ss, w e ar e va catin g th e part of the j udgm en t invo lving Vic kery ’ s supervised release w ith ins tructions th at the district court
rev is itit s t erm s. I. What w e knowf

ro m the r ec or d a

bout V ic ke ry ’ s e sc ap e is f

ound in his presentence investigation report, the accur acy of which was not contested before the dis tr ic t c ourt. T he e sc ap e oc curr ed in June 200 3, tw en ty -thr ee m onths i nto a 24- m onth se nte nc e V ic ke ry w as se rv ing a t the F ed er al Co rr ec tio na l I nst itute in Fo rr es t C ity , A rk an sa s f

or vio latin g th e co ndi tio ns o f his sup er vis ed r el ea se on a pr ev iou s c onvi ct ionf

or tr an spor tin g st ole n pr ope rty

a cr oss state li ne s. W ithhis girlfriend driving h im , V ickery wa s release d on a “ volu ntary , unescorted, transfer furl ough ” w ithins tr

uc tio ns t o r ep ort t o th e H ill sbor oughCo m m uni ty S an ct ion s3

Cen te r in Tam

pa , Flo rid a b efo re m id ni gh t o n J un e 2 , 20 03
. Although Vic kery had sig ne d astate m en t a cknow le dgi ng that hi s f ai lur e to d o so w oul d r es ult in him be ing pun ish ed

f or e sc ap e, he f

ai le d to r ep ort t o H ill sbor oughCo m m uni ty San ct io ns Cen te r as requi red
. Inf ac t, V ic ke ry

w as not se ena ga in unti l hi s arr es t
on May 10, 2 00 5, al m os t t wo years l at er. Included in th e supervised release par t of the sentence the district court im po se d o n Vi ck ery were t wo s et s o f co nd it io ns th atare atis su e in th is ap pe al
. O ne of the m r eq uir ed V ic ke ry to: fu lly c oope rate w iththe I nte rn al Re ve nue S er vic e an d, in ke ep ing w iththat c oope ratio n, pr ovi de the I nte rn al Re ve nue S er vic e w ith lawf ul tax returns for the y ears 2002, 2003, and 2004 , no later than tw e l v e mo n th s ( 1 ye ar ) f

o l l o w i n g h i s r e l e a s e f

r o m cu s t o dy. T he c ondi tio n w en t f

urthe r an d a lso r equir ed

V ic ke ry to “pay a ll out standi ng ta xe s, int er es t, and p en al tie s r el at ing to his f ai lur e to f ile pe rs ona l t axr et

ur ns” f or tho se thr ee y ears and t o ve ri fy w ithhis pr obatio n of

fi ce r that he w as m ee tin g th ose incom e tax obligatio ns “ to the fullest extent po ssibl e. ” Vick ery ob

jecte d t o the tax -fi li ng requi rem en ts . T he c ourt ov er ru le d th e obj ec tio n w ith out

e xpl an at ion
. T he c ourt a ppare ntl y a cc ep te d th e pr obatio n of fi ce r’ s e xpl an at ionof

w hy the c ondi tio n sh oul d be inc lud ed
. T he pr obatio n of fi ce r sa id d

ur ing the se nte nc e he ar ing :4

[T ] he re are no t axr ec or ds f ro m the I nte rn al Re ve nue S er vic e fo r the y ears 2002 throug h 200 4, during which part or a ll of that tim e Mr. V i c k e ry w a s i nh i s s t a tu s o f e s c ap e an dp o t e n t i a l l y d i de arni n c o me an d t hu s Pr ob at io n i ns ert edth atco nd it io n. T he oth er se t of c ondi tio ns a

bout w hic h V ic ke ry

c om pla ins c onc er

ne d dr ug testing. At the sentence hearing, the district court had said only : “ The m andatory drug testin g requirem ents of the Violent Crim e Control Ac t are wa ived, however , the Co urt auth or iz es r an dom dr ug t es tin g no t t o e xc ee d 10 4 te sts pe r y ear. ” I n th e w ri tte n j udgm en t the c ourt sp ec if ie d: T he de fe ndant s ha ll submit to o ne dr ug t es t w ith in 1 5 day s of

r el ea se from im prisonm ent and at least two per iodic drug test s thereaf ter, as de te rmine d by

the Co urt. T he Co urt auth or iz es r an dom dr ug t es tin g no t t o e xc eed10 4 t es ts pe r y ear. A nd the j udgm en t f

urthe r pr ovi de d: T h e man d a t o ry dr

u g t e s t i n g r e qu i r e me n t s o f th e V i o l e n tC r i me Co ntr ol A ct

are w ai ve d. H ow ev er , the Co urt auth or iz es the pr obatio n officer to contact [sic] random

drug testing not to exceed 104 test s per y ear.

“ W e re view the ter

m s of a supervised release for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Na sh, 438 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). II. W e first take up Vickery ’ s challenge to the requirem ent that he file tax
re tur ns f or 200 2 thro ugh 2004 and p ay any ba ck ta xe s, int er es t, and p en al tie s f or5

th os e y ears . These tax-related special c ondi tions of V ickery ’ s release we re im posed unde r 18 U
. S. C. § 35 83( d) , w hic h pe rmits adis tr ic t c ourt t o im pose any c ondi tio n

“ it consid ers to be appropriate” to the extent that the conditio n (am ong o ther thing s) is “ reasonably

relate d” to the factors listed in 18 U.S .C. § 3553 (a)( 1), (a )( 2) (B ), ( a) (2 )( C) , or

( a) (2 )( D ). T hose f

ac tor s are : ( 1) the natur e an d ci rcu m st an ces of t he off

en se an d t he hi st ory

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , § 35 53 (a)( 1) ; (2 ) th e n eedto affo rdad equa te de te rren ce t o c riminal co nduc t, § 3553 (a )( 2) (B ); ( 3) the ne ed to pr ote ct

the pub lic f

ro m f urthe r cr im es of

the defendant, § 3553(a)(2)( C); and (4) the nee d to provi de the defendant with needed ed uc at ion al or

voc at ion al tr ai nin g, m ed ic al c ar e, or oth er c or re ct ion al tr eatm en t i n the m ost e ff ec tiv e m anne r, § 35 53( a) (2 )( D ). W e have pr ev iou sly not ed that a spe ci al c ondi tio n “ ne ed

not be r el at ed

to ea ch[ lis te d] f

ac tor , ” an d th at , ins te ad ,

“ ea chf ac tor is anind ep en de nt c onsi de ratio n to be w ei ghe d. ” U nit ed S tate s v. Bu ll, 214 F
. 3d 1 275, 127 8 ( 11th C ir
. 200 0) ( em pha sis a dde d) ( re fe rr ing to the
se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ’ ve rs io n o f § 3 58 3( d) , U.S.S.G. § 5D1 .2(b )). T he gov er

nm en t c onc ed es that V ic ke ry ’ s tax r equir em en ts are not r el at ed to any of the last three f

actors, so the quest ion is whether they are rea sonablyrelate d to the “ nature and circum stances” of V ickery ’ s escape or his own personal “ histo ry6

an d c hara ct er ist ic s. ” W e knowthat the y are not ins of ar a s th e 2002 ta x y ear is
co nc er ne d. V ic ke ry

w as inc ar ce rate d duri ng a ll of that c al en dar y ear, and the re is no sug gestion that he som ehow earned enough m oney to require him

to file a tax
re tur n. T he f ai lur e to f ile ata x r et

ur n f or ay ear w he n no ne w as r equir ed c annot b e r ea s o n ab l y re l at edt o a c ri m e t h ath adn o ty etb ee nco m m i t t ed

—Vi ck ery d i dn ’t
es ca pe unt il June 200 3. F or

thi s r ea son by

it se lf , w e w oul d have to va cate and
re m an d th e se nte nc e fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt t o c or re ct the inc om e ta x r et

ur ns conditi on of the sup ervised relea se part of the sentence. Whil e the c as e is b ac k be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt, it sho uld a lso r ec onsi de r the
re m ai nde r of

the inc om e ta x r et

ur ns p ar t of the c ondi tio n. T he re is no e xpl an at ion in the r ec or d a

bout w hy that c ondi tio n w as r ea sona bly r el at ed to the c ri m e of
es ca pe . T he pr obatio n of

fi ce r sa id that V ic ke ry

did not f ile inc om e ta x r et

ur ns while on escape, but that do es not m ean his failure to do so was beca use he had
es ca pe d. T he re is no e vid en ce that V ic ke ry ha d e ve r fi le d any

inc om e ta x r et

ur ns, that he a ct

ua lly e ar ne d e noug h m one y

to do s o a ft er

he e sc ap ed , or

that the r ea son he did not f ile r et ur ns w as that he ha d e sc ap ed
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt m ad e no fi ndi ngs an d of

fe re d no e xpl an at ionf

or the c ondi tio n. W e w on’ t sp ec ulate about th e b as is an d t he n p as s o n t he leg al va li di ty of wha t we co m e up wi th
. If , on r em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt w ish es to re -i m pose the ta x r el at ed7

co ndi tio n f

or the 200 3 and 2 004 ta x y ears , it sho uld e xpl ai n ho wthat c ondi tio n is
re as ona bly r el at ed to any of the § 35 53 f

ac tor s up on whic h ac ondi tio n m ay be ba se d, and e nte r any

f ind ing s j ust if

y ing that e xpl an at ion
. O the rw ise , the c ondi tio n sh ou ldno t b e m ad e p artof t he term s o f th e supe rv is edrel eas e. III . V ic ke ry ’ s ne xt c ont en tio n is that the c ondi tio n “ autho ri z[ ing ] the pr obatio n of fi ce r to [ co nduc t] r an dom dr ug t es tin g no t t o e xc ee d 10 4 te sts pe r y ear” am ount s to anim pe rm is si bl e d el eg at io n o f a jud ic ia l fu nc ti on to th e p ro ba ti on off ic er. The ba si s fo r th is co nt en ti on is Arti cl e III o f th e Uni te d S ta te s C on st itut io n. W e have sa id that Art ic le I II pe rmits dis tr ic t c ourts t o de le gate to pr obatio n of fi ce rs the “ m ini ste ri al a ct [s ] or sup port se rv ic e[ s] ” ne ce ssary to carr y ing out
cr im ina l se nte nc es , but

doe s no t a llo wthe m

to de le gate the “ ult im at e res po ns ib il it y ” o f actua ll y im po si ng th os e se nt en ces . Nash , 43 8 F .3dat 1 30 4– 05
. For exam ple, “ wher e the [district] court m akes the determ ination of whether a de fe ndant m

ust abid e by ac ondi tio n, . . . it

is pe rmiss ibl e to d el eg at e to the probation officer

the details of wher e and when the c ondi tion will be satisfied.” Id . at 1 30 5 (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Ste ph en s, 4 24 F.3d87 6, 8 80 (9t h C ir. 2 00 5) ). See, e. g., United State s v. H eath, 419 F.3d 131 2, 1314–1 6 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (vac ating as plainlyerr oneous a supervised release conditi on that required8

the defendant to “ participate if and as directed by the probation office in such
m en ta l he al th p ro gr am s a s r ec om m en de d by

apsy ch iatr ist

or psy ch olo gis t” (em phasis add ed)). O n th e str en gthof

tho se auth or iti es , V ic ke ry arg ue s th at

the dr ug t es tin g conditi on of sup ervised relea se violates Article III because the court did not order the drug testin g refe rred to in its judgm ent but in stead authorized the testing
. If onlywe will order

the district court to change the word “ authorizes” to the word

“ or de rs , ” al l w ill be w el l, V ic ke ry a ssure s us . I f w e w er e not se ndi ng the c as e ba ck f or m or e pr oc ee din gs b ec au se of the tax r el at ed

c ondi tio ns any

w ay , w e m igh t be tem pted to pl um

b the depths of this issu e. But the case does have to go back
an d th e j udgm en t w ill have to be m odi fi ed in oth er r es pe ct s, and w e se e no h ar m in dir ec tin g th e dis tr ic t c ourt, w hil e it ha s th e ca se ba ck be fo re it and the j udgm en t
o p en , t o ch an g e i t s wo rd i n g s o th atth e d ru g t es t i n g i s n o tm er el y “ au th o ri ze [d ]” but ins te ad is or de re d. I t se em s asm al l pr ic e to p ay to dis pose of

suc h a
m om en to us is su e. IV. Fi na lly , V ic ke ry

c ha lle nge s th e im

posi tio n of

athr ee -y ear supe rv ise d r el ea se term at all, regar dless of its term s and condi tions
. To support his positi on, V ickery poi nts to his “ lon g hi sto ry of m en ta l i lln es s, ” his uns ta ble w ork hi sto ry , and h is9

cr im ina l hi sto ry , w hic h he a sse rt s ( not c onc ed es , but

a sse rt s) is “ re ple te w ith evidence of his [in] ability to succeed on supervis ion.” U nde r our

“ re as ona ble ne ss” r ev ie wof

se nte nc es , w e ev al uate w he the r the
se nte nc e at

iss ue is re as ona

ble in lig ht o f the se nte nc ing f ac tor s se t out i n 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Uni te d S ta te s v . Sco tt , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 28 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). A s th e party

c ha lle ngi ng the sup er

vis ed r el ea se te rm , it

is V ic ke ry

w ho b ears the bur de n of sho w ing it s unre as ona

ble ne ss. U nit ed

S tate s v. T al le y , 431 F
. 3d 7 84, 788 (11t h Cir. 2005 ) (per curiam). Ine ff ec t, V ic ke ry ’ s po int

is that hi s pa st p ro ve s th at he is not goi ng t o m ak e it thr oughthe te rm

of sup er vis ed r el ea se r eg ar dle ss o f any e xtr a co ndi tio ns, so i t i s futile to im

pose one. T here is no futility exception to eligi bilityfor supervisory relea se. Stated differ ently , V ickery has not carried his burden of showing th at the thr ee -y ear supe rv ise d r el ea se part of his se nte nc e is unr el at ed to his “ his tor

y and ch ar ac te ri sti cs , ” the ne ed to de te r him

f ro m f uture c ri m ina l c ondu ct , the ne ed to pr ote ct the pub lic f

ro m him , or the ne ed to pr ovi de him

w ithappr opr iate pos tprison care, j ust to n am e a f ewof the § 3553 (a) factors. Including a three-y ear pe rio d o f supe rv is edrel eas e in Vick ery’ s s en te nc e is reas on ab le
.10 V. V ic ke ry ’ s se nte nc e is AF FIRMED , e xc ep t that the part of it c onc er nin g supe rv ise d r el ea se is VA CA TED , and the c as e is REMANDED for further pr oc eed in gs co ns is te ntwit h t hi s o pi ni on .