IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-31255

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DESTINEY HAMILTON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:17-CR-245-4

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Destiney Hamilton appeals a special condition of supervised release 

requiring her to be “subject to financial disclosure throughout the term of 

supervision.” She argues that the condition is (1) vague and ambiguous, (2) not 

supported by the record or by a factual finding from the court, (3) not 

reasonably related to the appropriate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors or narrowly 

 

* 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

September 5, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-31255 Document: 00515106049 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2019
No. 18-31255

2

tailored, and (4) redundant of the standard condition requiring her to maintain 

employment.

Where error is not preserved due to the failure to make a timely 

objection, we review the imposition of a condition of supervised release for plain 

error. See United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 224-25 (5th Cir. 2013). The 

district court’s special conditions of supervised release “must be reasonably 

related” to the factors set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 

155, 164-65 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)). 

In this case, the record shows that the district court considered 

appropriate § 3553(a) factors, including the need for deterrence, the nature of 

Hamilton’s offense, and her history and characteristics, in imposing the 

challenged condition. See § 3583(d). To the extent that Hamilton contends 

that the imposition of the financial disclosure condition resulted in a sentence 

that was greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing, she does

not identify any affected liberty interests and has therefore abandoned this 

argument. See United States v. Reagan, 596 F.3d 251, 254-55 (5th Cir. 2010); 

Paul, 274 F.3d at 165. Moreover, she has not shown that the financial 

disclosure condition would be overly burdensome and redundant because the 

financial disclosure condition serves purposes other than ensuring her 

continued employment. Hence, she has not shown error, much less clear or 

obvious error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To the 

extent she claims that the district court committed procedural error by failing 

to state reasons for the condition, she fails to argue or show that providing 

reasons specific to the challenged special condition would have changed the 

outcome of the case, and therefore she has not shown that any plain error 

affected her substantial rights. See United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 

F.3d 357, 364-65 (5th Cir. 2009).

 Case: 18-31255 Document: 00515106049 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2019
No. 18-31255

3

As for Hamilton’s vagueness challenge, a commonsense interpretation of 

the condition is that it refers to bank account statements, credit reports, 

payroll stubs, and similar indications of Hamilton’s financial condition. See

Paul, 274 F.3d at 166-67. Moreover, because we have not invalidated a similar 

condition for vagueness, Hamilton has not shown that any error is clear or 

obvious under present law. See United States v. Salinas, 480 F.3d 750, 756 

(5th Cir. 2007).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-31255 Document: 00515106049 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/05/2019