Opinion ID: 200784
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantive Concern

Text: Guideline § 5D1.3(d) states as follows: 51 The following special conditions of supervised release are recommended in the circumstances described and, in addition, may otherwise be appropriate in particular cases: 52 ... 3) Access to Financial Information 53 If the court imposes an order of restitution, forfeiture, or notice to victims, or orders the defendant to pay a fine — a condition requiring the defendant to provide the probation officer access to any requested financial information. 54 U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(3). 55 The court, after taking Meléndez's financial condition into account, did not include a fine as part of his sentence and did not order him to pay restitution; therefore, he does not meet the listed conditions. That does not mean, however, that the court was not justified in imposing the disclosure requirement. The Guidelines allow such conditions when they are appropriate in particular cases. Id. A sentencing judge has broad discretion to impose special conditions of release that are `reasonably related' to (1) the defendant's offense, history and characteristics; (2) the need for adequate deterrence; and (3) the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. United States v. Phaneuf 91 F.3d 255, 263 (1st Cir.1996). 56 According to the stipulated statement of facts accompanying the plea agreement in Appeal No. 01-2386, Meléndez was responsible for financing the purchase of twenty-five kilograms of cocaine at a cost of $300,000. In Appeal No. 01-2397, the passenger he dropped off at the airport was found with $36,000 in cash in a bag. Forcing Meléndez to provide financial records to the probation officer would assist the officer in detecting whether he has returned to his criminal ways. As we recently observed when we upheld a similar condition imposed under similar circumstances: 57 The special condition allows the court, through the probation department, to monitor the appellant's earnings and identify any potential disparity between his income and his lifestyle. Relatedly, it serves to deter the appellant from engaging in schemes similar to the crimes of conviction once he is released from prison by forcing him to account for his income. 58 United States v. Mansur-Ramos, 348 F.3d 29, 33 (1st Cir.2003). Given the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the district court's imposition of this condition did not constitute an abuse of discretion. 59