Opinion ID: 76239
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: restriction on visiting places where children congregate

Text: 20 Taylor also challenges the special condition on his supervised release that he have no direct contact with minors without his probation officer's written approval and that he refrain from entering into any area where children frequently congregate, including schools, day care centers, theme parks, playgrounds, etc. 21 Taylor maintains that the condition is vague because the list uses the term etc. Conceivably, he suggests, the restriction could extend to churches, libraries, fast food restaurants, movie theaters, and shopping malls. Moreover, he asserts that the restriction does not put him on notice of how many young people must be present to trigger the condition.... He concludes that the restriction has the potential to severely curtail, if not eliminate, [his] freedom of movement and association, and [l]eft to the discretion of the probation office, [he] could be conceivably restricted from the majority of public locations. 22 Once again, Zinn raised this same challenge and we rejected it. Zinn, 321 F.3d at 1088. However, we did so without elaboration. Id. While the same process is justified here, we note that our sister Circuits have provided persuasive arguments in support of the conclusion stated in the Zinn opinion. See United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155, 167 (5th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1002, 122 S.Ct. 1571, 152 L.Ed.2d 492 (2002) (Sentencing courts must inevitably use categorical terms to frame the contours of supervised release conditions. Such categorical terms can provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct when there is a commonsense understanding of what activities the categories encompass.); United States v. Gallo, 20 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir.1994) ([T]hough a probationer is entitled to notice of what behavior will result in a violation, so that he may guide his actions accordingly, fair warning is not to be confused with the fullest, or most pertinacious, warning imaginable. Conditions of probation do not have to be cast in letters six feet high, or to describe every possible permutation, or to spell out every last, self-evident detail.) We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion.