Opinion ID: 729705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: condition of supervised release

Text: 41 Debowale asserts that his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by a condition of his supervised release that requires him to provide the probation officer access to any requested financial information. We disagree. 42 Title 18 U.S.C. 3583(d) allows the district court to order any condition of supervised release that it considers to be appropriate, so long as that condition: 43 (1) is reasonably related to the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D); 44 (2) involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for the purposes set forth in section 3553(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D); and 45 (3) is consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a). 46 18 U.S.C. 3583(d). 47 The Sentencing Commission policy statements specifically contemplate a condition of supervised release such as the one imposed in this case. Section 5B1.4(b)(18) provides: 48 If the court imposes an order of restitution, forfeiture, or notice to victims, or orders the defendant to pay a fine, it is recommended that the court impose a condition requiring the defendant to provide the probation officer access to any requested financial information. 49 U.S.S.G. 5B1.4(b)(18) (emphasis added). The district court ordered Debowale to pay restitution of $380,689.23. The court's requirement that he provide access to any requested financial information is thus not only consistent with, but is identical to, the policy statement promulgated by the Sentencing Commission.