1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Kevin Dean McCoy,

Defendant.

No. CR-17-00317-003-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendant Kevin Dean McCoy’s Motion to Remove 

Separatee/No Contact Order. (Doc. 322). The government has no objection to the request. 

(Doc. 324). Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion. 

Defendant is currently serving a sentence of 180 months in custody on one count 

of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances and one count 

of Money Laundering Conspiracy. (Doc. 245 at 1). Defendant now moves to remove the 

“separatee/no contact” order between him and his fiancée/co-defendant, Amber Nicole 

Worrell who is serving a prison term of 120 months for her role in the conspiracies. (Doc. 

229 at 1). Defendant would like the no contact condition removed so he can marry 

Worrell. (Doc. 322 at 2). 

A condition “limit[ing] a defendant to associating with ‘law-abiding individuals’”

is permissible. United States v. Napulou, 593 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2010). However, 

when that condition prohibits an individual from contacting someone with whom the 

individual has an intimate relationship, it implicates a particular significant liberty 

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT Document 325 Filed 11/08/21 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

interest. United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012); Napulou, 593 

F.3d at 1047 (quoting United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552, 568 (9th Cir. 2006)); United 

States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 2008). But just because an “intimate 

relationship” exists does not mean that the condition is invalid. The court must then 

examine the substantive reasonableness of the condition, Wolf Child, 699 F.3d at 1090, 

and provide a “sufficient explanation” why this significant infringement on the 

defendant’s liberty interest is necessary. United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873, 890 (9th 

Cir. 2012).

Here, Defendant is in an intimate relationship with Worrell that predates their 

crimes. Both Defendant and Worrell still have significant time to serve on their prison 

terms. Any concern that lifting the no contact order could lead to recidivism is mitigated 

by their present incarceration. Moreover, during his incarceration, Defendant has 

submitted evidence showing that he has been successful in various prison programs, for 

example completing BOP programming and serving as an Auto repair instructor and 

mentor to other inmates. Finally, the government has no objections to Defendant’s 

Motion. The government’s lack of objection is a strong indicator that removing the no 

contact order will not be a detriment to society or Defendant and Worrell. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Remove Separatee/No Contact 

Order (Doc. 322) is granted. Doc. 245 is amended to remove Standard Condition No. 8

as to Defendant Worrell only. 

Dated this 8th day of November, 2021.

Case 2:17-cr-00317-JAT Document 325 Filed 11/08/21 Page 2 of 2