Opinion ID: 2745815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plea and Sentence

Text: Seven months later, on November 1, 2013, Hinds pled guilty—via open plea—to conspiracy to use counterfeit devices, possession of forged securities, and conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(1)-(b)(2), 472, 1344, and 1349, respectively. Hinds stipulated to the above facts, supported largely through the sentencing testimony of Secret Service Special Agent John Ely. His appeal centers on his sentence, an issue to which we now turn. The district court sentenced Hinds to imprisonment for three concurrent terms of thirty months, a sentence at the bottom of his calculated guideline range. This range resulted, in part, from a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(11)(B)(i) (adding two levels if the offense involved production or trafficking), which was recommended in the presentence report. Hinds objected to that enhancement at sentencing. He argued there was no evidence to prove that he actually produced or trafficked the fraudulent credit and debit cards. After some back-and-forth between Hinds and the government, the district court found the offense involved “the production or trafficking of counterfeit devices,” (Sent. Tr. 57), so it applied the enhancement.3 The district court also ordered Hinds to pay restitution in the amount of $21,818.89, plus a special assessment of $300.00. The district court did not, 3 Notably, if this two-level enhancement had not been applied, Hinds’s guideline range with a criminal history category of II would have been twenty-four to thirty months instead of thirty to thirty-seven months. No. 13-3543 5 however, order Hinds to pay interest on this restitution. The district court waived that requirement because it found he did “not have the ability to pay interest … .” (Sent. Tr. 64.) The district court also did not order Hinds to pay a fine “based on [his] financial resources.” (Id.) Despite its concern for Hinds’s indigence, the district court imposed a special condition requiring him to pay a portion of his substance abuse treatment and drug testing during his period of supervised release (“payment condition”). Per the district court: [T]he defendant shall participate in a substance abuse treatment program at the direction of his probation officer, which may include no more than eight drug tests per month. The defendant shall abstain from the use of all intoxicants, including alcohol, while participating in the substance abuse program, and he will be responsible for paying a portion of the fees of substance abuse testing and treatment. (Sent. Tr. 66.) The district court did not establish what percentage accounts for Hinds’s “portion” of payment, or what will happen to Hinds if he cannot pay. Nor did the district court make this special condition contingent on Hinds’s ability to pay. Evidently, the only qualification to this special condition is that Hinds be subject to no more than eight drug tests per month. Hinds challenges this payment condition on appeal. 6 No. 13-3543 Hinds also challenges a second condition imposed by the district court—the search-and-seizure special condition. Per the district court: [T]he defendant shall submit to the search, with the assistance of other law enforcement as necessary, of his person, vehicle, office, business, residence, and property, including computer systems and peripheral devices. The defendant shall submit to the seizure of any contraband found and warn other occupants of the premises that they may be subject to the searches. (Sent. Tr. 65-66.) Absent from this condition is a prerequisite of reasonable suspicion (or any level of suspicion) that he committed an offense or violated a term of his supervised release. In issuing these special conditions, the district court offered little support. Its sole explanation was that “[t]he substance abuse testing and treatment, based on your reported substance abuse history and the search and seizure, is being ordered based on the nature of the instant offense.” (Sent. Tr. 69.) The district court did not expressly address or attempt to justify its payment condition. Hinds did not object to these special conditions at sentencing. His sole objection, mentioned above, focused on the twolevel enhancement for production or trafficking of the counterNo. 13-3543 7 feit access devices. On appeal, however, he objects to both the enhancement and the special conditions of his supervised release. We turn to the merits.