Opinion ID: 157837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Special Conditions on Probation

Text: Finally, Mr. Ensminger challenges the imposition of special conditions of supervised release relating to financial disclosures and restrictions. 3 He contends 3 At the end of the sentencing hearing, the court imposed the following special conditions on his term of supervised release: You will disclose all assets and liabilities to the probation office. You will not transfer, sell, give away or otherwise convey any asset without first consulting with the probation office. You will, upon request of the probation office, authorize release of any and all financial records, income tax records and Social Security records. You will maintain a single checking account in your name which you will use for the deposit of all income and other pecuniary proceeds and used [sic] for the payment of all personal expenses. All other bank accounts must be disclosed to the probation office. You will not make application for any loan or enter into any credit -9- that the conditions are not reasonably related to the crime of conviction. We review for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Edgin, 92 F.3d 1044, 1047 (10th Cir. 1996). Although a district court has broad discretion in setting conditions of supervised release, see id. at 1048, any condition chosen must (1) [be] reasonably related to the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D); 4 (2) involve[] no greater deprivation of liberty than is necessary for the purposes set forth in section 3553(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D); and (3) [be] consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 944(a). 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)-(3). The district court imposed the special conditions at the end of the sentencing hearing, after it had resolved all the objections to the presentence arrangement without consulting the probation office. If you maintain an interest in any business or enterprise, you will, on request, make available any of the records of that business to the probation enterprise [sic]. 4 R. at 25-26. 4 Under these provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a court must consider (a) “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” and (b) the need to “afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” “protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,” and “provide the defendant with needed . . . training, medical care, or other correctional treatment.” - 10 - report and after Mr. Ensminger had already made his final statement. Mr. Ensminger did not object to the conditions. However, under similar circumstances in Edgin, we found that there was no waiver of the issue for appeal. See Edgin, 92 F.3d at 1049. In Edgin, we considered the propriety of a special condition which prevented the defendant from contacting his son. Because the district court in Edgin failed to make factual findings or provide any reasons for that special condition, we remanded so that the court could state its reasoning. Likewise, the district court in the case at bar provided no reasons for its conditions of financial disclosures and restrictions. However, in Edgin we noted that a father generally “has a fundamental liberty interest in maintaining his familial relationship with his son,” id., and stated that the district court must “fine-tune” restrictions of such a liberty interest to meet the goals of § 3553(a)(2)(B)-(D). Here no such fundamental interests are involved, and thus the same level of “fine-tuning” is not required. Under § 3583(d), a special condition of supervised release must be reasonably related to “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and must involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary in light of the need “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant.” All three counts of - 11 - the indictment relate to Mr. Ensminger’s attempts to defraud financial institutions. See 2 R. at 3. Mr. Ensminger belongs to an organization, “We The People,” which “does not believe the federal banking system has authority after they ceased being backed by the gold standard.” 2 R. at 12. After First National Bank of Okeene, Oklahoma and Federal Land Bank of Enid, Oklahoma refused to honor the false money orders which formed the basis of counts one and two, Mr. Ensminger filed “Notices of Defaults” against the banks. Given Mr. Ensminger’s history and characteristics, and the need to protect the public from further similar crimes, we conclude that financial conditions imposed upon Mr. Ensminger meet the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Although we AFFIRM the district court’s enhancement for more than minimal planning and imposition of special conditions, we REMAND to the district court to VACATE its sentence and resentence in accordance with this opinion. - 12 - 98-6179, United States v. Ensminger