Opinion ID: 620190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prohibition from Consuming Alcohol

Text: Anderson contends that the district court plainly erred by prohibiting him from consuming alcohol because the court merely speculated that he has a drinking problem with no evidence in the record to substantiate that such a problem actually exists. We have held that a sentencing court abuses its discretion by imposing a total alcohol ban in circumstances where the record evidence does not support such a restriction. United States v. Behler, 187 F.3d 772, 779 (8th Cir.1999) (citing United States v. Bass, 121 F.3d 1218, 1223-24 (8th Cir.1997); United States v. Prendergast, 979 F.2d 1289, 1292-93 (8th Cir.1992)). In cases where the defendant's history or crime of conviction did not support a complete ban on alcohol, we have reversed. United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475, 480-81 (8th Cir.2010) (finding that the district court did not plainly err by imposing an alcohol ban on a defendant who self-reported that he was manic depressive and who may have been deceptive about prior alcohol use); see Prendergast, 979 F.2d at 1293 (8th Cir.1992) (striking special conditions that prohibited the defendant from using alcohol where [t]here [was] no evidence indicating that [the defendant] suffer[ed] from alcoholism or that the use of alcohol in any way contributed to the commission of the offense for which he was sentenced). Unlike Prendergast, alcohol played a role in Anderson's offense. Anderson provided the 13-year-old victims M.R. and J.J. with alcohol both before and after he engaged in sexual intercourse with M.R. Anderson was a member of the Facebook groups All i want to do is get drunk and take pictures!!! and A Drunk Girls Guide to Social Graces. In several of the Facebook chats Anderson had with adolescent girls, he described partying with adolescents. The probation office's sentencing recommendation noted that alcohol was used in the instant offense as part of the grooming process. Furthermore, although Anderson reported that he does not have an issue with alcohol, alcohol was the cause of Anderson's only prior conviction. Given this evidence, the district court did not commit plain error by prohibiting Anderson from consuming alcohol. See, e.g., Simons, 614 F.3d at 481 (determining that, although the facts might not be sufficient to justify a 20-year ban on alcohol, even assuming the district court erred, it did not rise to the level of plain error).