Opinion ID: 4565900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Special Condition Four

Text: Finally, Thomas argues that the district court erred in imposing Special Condition Four, which requires him to “comply with any applicable state or federal sex offender registration requirements as instructed by the probation office, the Bureau of Prisons, or any state registration agency in the state where he resides, works, or is a student.” J.A. at 222. Thomas argues that Special Condition Four is duplicative of Mandatory Condition Six, not challenged on appeal, 6 which requires Thomas to “comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (34 U.S.C. § 20901 et seq.) as directed by the probation officer, the Bureau of Prisons, or any state sex offender registration agency in the location where you reside, work, are a student or were convicted of a qualifying offense.” J.A. at 220. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a condition that is redundant and potentially subject to misinterpretation in light of the parties’ agreement that Thomas, a New York resident, is not required to register as a sex offender under New York law. We disagree. Special Condition Four merely requires Thomas to comply with applicable law. It therefore imposes no additional obligations upon him beyond what state and federal law require. And while there may be overlap between Special Condition Four and Mandatory Condition Six, we disagree with Thomas that Special Condition Four is merely a restatement of that mandatory condition. Mandatory Condition Six requires compliance with federal law. The parties agree that as a New York resident, Thomas is not now required to register in New York under state law. Special Condition Four is not limited to New York, however, nor to the present, but requires Thomas to comply with the law of any state in which Thomas may in future reside, work, or study, or to New York requirements, should they be altered. As such, Special Condition Four is not duplicative of Mandatory Condition Six, is reasonably related to Thomas’s history and characteristics, and does not work a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in imposing the condition.