T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10 TH C IR . R. 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of t hi s appea l . See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34( A )(2); 10 TH C IR . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### N ove m b e r2,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 5012 v. ( N . D . O kl ahoma) AM BE R H OP S ON,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 1 2 0 - 0 1 - P J C)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. ** A m b e r H o p s o n p le a d e d g u ilty to th e th e f t o f g o v e rn m e n t p ro p e rt y , a m isd e m e a n o r v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 6 4 1 . T h e m a g istra te ju d g e se n ten c e d h e r to fiv e y e a rs’ p ro b a tio n a n d o rd e re d h e r to p a rticip a te in a p ro g ra m o f m e n tal h e a lth tr e a tm e n t.-2-

M s. H o p so n n o w a rg u e s th a t th e m a g istra te ju d g e a b u se d h is d isc re tio n in or der i ng m ent al heal t h t r eatm entbeca us e thatcondi t i on of pr obat i on and the at t endantdepr i vat i on of l i ber t yw er e notr eas onabl yr el at ed t o the offens e of convi ct i on oranyot herr el evants ent enci ng fac t or , as r equi r ed by18 U . S. C . §§ 3553 and 3563. W e agr ee, and ther efor e vac at e M s . H ops on’ s s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng.

I . BA CKGROUND M s . H ops on’ s convi ct i on ar i s es outof herr ece i ptof publ i c hous i ng as s i s t ance fr om t he Tul s a H ous i ng A uthor i ty , an age ncyt hatr ece i ves fede r al funds . I n excha nge forhous i ng as s i s t ance , M s . H ops on w as r equi r ed t o r epor ther in c o m e to th e g o v e rn m e n t. H o w e v e r, d u rin g 2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 4 , M s. H o p so n fa iled to re p o rt $ 4 1 ,4 3 7 .8 3 in in c o m e , an d sh e th e re fo re re c e iv e d $ 9 ,7 5 7 in fe d e ra l f u n d s to w hi ch s he w as notent i t l ed. T he governm entchar ged M s . H ops on w i th the theft o f g o v e r n m e n tp r o p e r t y i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 6 4 1 , a n d s h e p l e a d e d g u i l t y. T he p res entence reportprovided the foll ow i ng i nfo rm at i on abo ut M s. H op son’s fam i l yci rcum st ances:

[M s . ] H ops on m arr i ed A nt oni o N ear s o n F ebruary14, 2004. T he coupl e has t w o chi l dr en . . . . age f i ve . . . and ei ght een mont hs . [M r . ] N ear s i s curr ent l y unempl oy ed and w a s r e l e a s e d f

r o m th e Okl a h o ma Dep a r t me nt of C o rrecti o n s in O ctob er 2 0 0 5 o n a d rug co n v ict ion . N ea rs al s o has a pr i ordrug convi ct i on fordr i vi ng underthe i nfl uence , and fourpr i orconvi ct i ons foras saul tand-3- batt ery - dom es t i c r el at ed offens es i n w hi ch [M s . ] H ops on i s t he vi ct i m . T w o of thes e convi ct i ons w er e i n the pr es ence of m i norchi l dr en. R e c . v o l. I I, a t 8 , ¶ 2 8 . A s to h e r m e n tal a n d e m o tio n a l h e a lth , the p re se n ten c e re p o rt sta tes th a t: [M s ] H o p s on r ece i ved couns el i ng atage e l even a ft erher par ent s [’ ] di vor ce. She ul t i m at el yw as pl aced . . . atthe C ol l i ns vi l l e Y out h C ent eri n C ol l i ns vi l l e, O kl ahoma, by h e r m o th e r fo r b e in g in c o rr ig ib le . Id. ¶ 30 . T he repo rtadd s that M s. H op son h as no h i st oryof alcoho l or drug ab use a n d th a t “[ t]h e P ro b a tio n O ffice r h a s u n c o v e re d n o a d d iti o n a l in fo rm a tio n to s u g g e s t th a t th e d e fe n d a n t is in n e e d o f tr e a tm e n t fo r s u b s ta n c e a b u s e .” Id . ¶ 3 1 . T he m agis t rat e j ud ge sentenced M s. H op son to a t erm of fi ve y ears ’ p ro b a tio n . O n e o f

th e c o n d iti o n s o f

p ro b a tio n w a s th a t M s. H o p so n “ p a rticip a te in a p ro g ra m o f

m e n tal h e a lth tre a tm e n t (to in c lu d e in p a tien t an d d o m e stic vi ol ence couns el i ng) , as di r ect ed bythe Pr obat i on O ffi cer , unt i l s uch t i m e as the d e fe n d a n t is re le a s e d f ro m th e p ro g ra m b yth e P ro b a tio n O ff ic e r.” R e c . v o l. I , d o c . 1 7 , a t 2 (J u d g m e n t, file d J a n . 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 ). T hr ough couns el , M s . H ops on obj ect ed t o thi s condi t i on, ar gui ng thatthe condi t i on w as not“r eas onabl yr el at ed t o the cr i m e i t s el f, nornece s s aryforthe s u p e rv is io n o f

M s . H o p s o n .” Id . v o l. I V , a t 8 (T r. o f S e n t’ g H r’ g , J a n . 5 , 2 0 0 6 ). C o u n s e l a c k n o w le d g e d th a t th e c o n d itio n “ m a yb e b e n e fic ia l fo r M s . H o p s o n ,” buthe cont ended that“i tpr obabl yexce eds the s cope of w hati s r eas onabl e under-4-

t he cr i m e s he comm i t t ed and w as convi ct ed of a nd the condi t i ons thats he nee d l i ve under . ” I d. T h e m a g istra te ju d g e o v e rru led th e o bjec tio n , ex p lain in g th a t: I thi nk t hatt he fe eli n g t her e of the C our ti s t hatgi ven s o me o f t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s i n v o l v e d he r e , th e r e i s s o me conce r n abo u t M s. H ops on’ s abi l i tyt o abi de bythe s t andar d pr obat ion condi t i ons as w el l as t he fi nanci al condi t i ons and r es t i tut i on con d it i ons thatI ’ m i m pos i ng here. I think i t ’s i n h er besti n ter est , as w el l as i n the best i nt er es tof the U ni t ed St at es that thatcondi t i on be i m p o se d, and I s ai d, no ton l yfor her bene fi t , bu tt o als o al l ow us t o bett erpol i ce he r co m p li ance w i th t he condi t i ons I ’ ve out l i ned i n our standar d pr obat i on condi t i ons . So, I ’ m goi ng t o g o ah ea d and i m pos e a m ent al heal t h condi t i on, w hi ch is pr i m ar i l yai m ed at dom es t i c vi ol ence couns el i ng. Id . a t 8 -9 . I I . DI S CU S S I ON O n appea l , M s . H ops on chal l enges t he magi s tr at e j udge’ s i m pos i t i on of the m e n tal h e a lth tre a tm e n t co n d iti o n o f p ro b a tio n . S h e c o n ten d s th a t th e c o n d iti o n is n o t re a so n a b lyre late d to th e fa c to rs th a t th e se n ten c in g ju d g e is a u th o riz e d to c o n s i d e r . S h e n o t e s t h a tt h e j u s t i fi c a t i o n g i v e n fo rt h e c o n d i t i o n wa s n o th e ro wn conductbutr atherherhus band’ s dom es t i c vi ol ence convi ct i ons . M or eover , t he o ffe n se o f

c o n v ictio n , h o u sin g a ss ista n c e f ra u d , w a s n o t re late d to d o m e stic vi ol ence . Fur t her , s he cont i nues , t her e i s no evi dence i n the r ecor d i ndi cat i ng th a t sh e n e e d s m e n tal h e a lth tre a tm e n t. S h e a c k n o w led g e s th a t “a p a ter n a listic-5-

conce r n forherw el l - bei ng [i s ] under s t andabl e, ” A pl t ’ s B r . at9, butar gues that s u c h a c o n c e rn is in s u ffic ie n t to ju s tif ya c o n d itio n o f

p ro b a tio n . I n r es pons e, t he governm entdefe nds the ment al - heal th- tr eatm entcondi t i on. I tm ai nt ai ns t hatt he condi t i on pert ai ns t o M s . H ops on’ s “hi s t oryand c h a ra c ter istics ,” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(1 ), an d th a t itis re a so n a b lyn e c e ss a ryto ac co m p li sh the p u rpo ses o f th e se n tenc e. S ee 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(2). W e r evi ew t he magi s t r at e j udge’ s i m pos i t i on of a c ondi t i on of pr obat i on for an ab u se o f d iscreti o n . U n it ed S tat es v . B artsm a, 19 8 F . 3 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 2 0 0 (10 th C ir . 1999) . T hatdi s cr et i on i s cabi ned by18 U . S. C . § 3563( b) , w hi ch pr ovi des a l i s tof d isc re tio n a ryc o n d iti o n s th a t th e c o u rt m a yim p o se . O n e o f th o se c o n d iti o n s is appl i cabl e her e: t he s ent enci ng j udge mayor derthe defendantt o “under go avai l abl e medi cal , ps y chi atr i c, orps y chol ogi cal tr eatm ent , i ncl udi ng tr eatm entfor drug oral cohol depende ncy , as s peci fi ed bythe court , and r emai n i n a s peci fi ed insti tuti o n req u ir ed fo r th at pu rpo se.” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 6 3 (b)(9 ). H o w e v e r, u n d e r § 3 5 6 3 , the listed c o n d iti o n s m u st (1 ) b e “ re a so n a b ly r el at ed t o t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 1) and ( a) ( 2) ”; and ( 2)

“ in v o lv e o n lysu c h d e p riv a tio n s o f lib e rtya n d p ro p e rtya s a re re a so n a b ly nece s s aryfort he purpos es i ndi cat ed i n s ect i on 3553( a) ( 2) . ” I d. § 3563( b) . T he re fe re n c e d sta tu te, § 3 5 5 3 (a ), p ro v id e s in p a rt th a t:

T he cou r ts hal l i m pos e a s ent ence s uffi ci ent , butnot gr eat ert h an n eces s ary , t o compl yw i th t he purpos es s et fo rth in p a r a g r a p h (2 ) o f th is s u b se c tio n . T h e c o u rt, i n-6- d e ter m in in g th e p a rticu lar se n ten c e to b e im p o se d , sh a ll co n side r-- ( 1) t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offen s e and the h isto rya n d c h a ra c ter istics o f th e d e fe n d a n t; (2) the n ee d fo r th e se n tenc e im p o sed --

(A ) to r e fle c t th e se rio u sn e ss o f th e o ffe n se , to prom ote r espectfor the law , and to p ro vide j ust puni s hm entforthe offens e; ( B ) t o affor d ad equat e det err ence t o cr i m i nal c o n d u c t; ( C ) t o pr ot ec t t he publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of the defe ndant ; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal care, or ot her corr ect i onal t r eatm enti n the mosteffect i ve m an n er; (3 ) t h e k in d s o f

s e n te n c e s a v a ila b le . . . . H ere, t he m agis t rat e j ud ge an d the gov ernm ent have rel i ed u po n M s. H ops on’ s “hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs , ” § 3553( a) ( 1) , and heral l eged ne ed for “educ at i onal . . . orm edi cal car e, ” § 3553( a) ( 2) ( D ) , as j us t i fi cat i on forthe c h a lle n g e d c o n d itio n o f p ro b a tio n . A lth o u g h w e a ffo rd b roa d d iscreti o n to the m ag istrate jud g e, on this reco rd w e ar e unabl e t o di s cern a perm i s s i bl e bas i s forthe cha l l enged c ondi t i on of pr obat i on. A s M s . H ops on not es , the r ecor d i s devoi d of anyi ndi cat i on thather hus band’ s dom es t i c vi ol ence convi ct i ons w er e conne ct ed t o the offens e of-7-

convi ct i on. See B art s m a, 198 F. 3d at1200 ( “A n appel l at e courts houl d notbe l eft t o s pecul at e aboutt he nexus betw een the condi t i on and the natur e and ci r cumst ance s of the offens e. ”) . N or , i n contr as tt o othercas es , i s ther e any e v id e n c e th a t an yn e e d th a t M s. H o p so n m a yh a v e fo r m e n tal h e a lth tre a tm e n t is di r ect l yr el at ed t o t he under l y i ng convi ct i on fortheftof governm entpr operty . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. I ver s en, 90 F. 3d 1340, 1343- 44 ( 8th C i r . 1996) ( concl udi ng that t he i m pos i t i on of ps y chi atr i c orps y chol ogi cal tr eatm entas a s peci al condi t i on of pr obat i on w as j us t i fi ed bya s t at ementi n the pr es ent ence r eportthatthe d e fe n d a n t’s “ fa m ilya n d f rie n d s h a d e x p re ss e d c o n c e rn s a s to ‘th e e m o tio n a l to ll’ on [the defendant ] fr om var i ous l egal di s put es ” and the defendant ’ s s t at ementt hat t he convi ct i on fel t“l i ke the end of herl i fe a s s he know s i t ”) ( quot i ng the p rese n tenc e re p o rt ). I n ourvi ew , t hi s cas e i s anal ogous t o U ni t ed St at es v. K ent , 209 F. 3d 1073 ( 8t h C i r . 2000) . T her e, t he Ei ghth C i r cui tconcl uded thatr equi r i ng the defendant i n a m ai l fraud case t o u nd ergo psy cho l og i cal or psy chiatri c cou nsel i ng as a s peci al condi t i on of pr obat i on cons t i tut ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on. T he courtnot ed t he governm ent ’ s conce s s i on t hatthe condi t i on w as unr el at ed t o the natur e of the defe ndant ’ s offe ns es . I d. at1076. M or eover , even though the defendanthad phy s i cal l yabus ed hi s w i fe thi r t een y ear s pr i ort o the s ent enci ng, the abus i ve b e h a v i o rh a d c e a s e d a n d “ t h e g o v e rn me n tfa i l e d t o p r o v i d e a n yt e s t i mo n yf r o m a m e d ic a l e x p e rt a im e d a t a d d re s s in g [ th e d e fe n d a n t’ s ] c u rr e n t c o n d itio n .” Id .-8-

Fi nal l y , no evi dence s ugges t ed thatm ent al heal th couns el i ng w oul d fur therthe g o a ls o f d e te rr e n c e o r p u b lic p ro te c tio n . Id . a t 1 0 7 7 . Th e d o me s t i c c o u n s e l i n g c o n d i t i o n a ti s s u e h e r e s u ffe r s f r o m th e s a me d e ficie n c ies . T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t es tab lish th a t th e c o n d iti o n is re a so n a b ly r el at ed t o t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e, the hi s t or yand char act er i s t i cs of M s . H ops on, s ee 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 1) , orthe purpos es of s e n te n c in g s e t fo rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 2 ).

I I I . CONCL US I ON A ccor di ngl y , w e V A C A T E M s . H ops on’ s s ent ence and R E M A N D for r es ent enci ng. O n r emand, t he di s tr i ctcourtm ayr ece i ve “‘ anyr el evantevi dence t he courtcoul d have he ar d att he fi r s ts ent enci ng hear i ng. ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. G r een, 175 F. 3d 822, 836 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. O r t i z, 25 F .3 d 9 3 4 , 9 3 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 )) . E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt, R o b ert H . H en ry C i r cui tJ udge