Opinion ID: 4124319
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alcohol Ban and Substance Abuse Treatment

Text: In addition to GPS monitoring, the district court also imposed a total alcohol ban, which prohibited [LaFontaine] from entering any establishment that holds itself out to the public to be a bar or tavern, and ordered substance abuse treatment. LaFontaine argues that imposing these special conditions of supervised release without explanation was in error. We disagree. As with GPS monitoring, the court advised LaFontaine prior to sentencing that it intended to require special conditions for supervised release, including an alcohol ban and substance abuse treatment. Unlike GPS monitoring, however, LaFontaine failed to object to these conditions. In fact, at sentencing LaFontaine stated that he was not objecting to–the substance abuse treatment, the mental health evaluation, the prohibition of alcohol consumption, the no-contact orders, and the search provisions. Thus, although we would normally review for plain error because LaFontaine failed to object to the conditions, United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475, 478 (8th Cir. 2010), because LaFontaine knowingly and voluntarily waive[d these] right[s], any error is unreviewable on appeal, United States v. Campbell, 764 F.3d 874, 878 (8th Cir. 2014). The district court advised LaFontaine of its plan of action, and LaFontaine agreed to it. He invited [any] error, id. (quoting Matthew v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 639 F.3d 857, 868 (8th Cir. 2011)), and he cannot [now] complain that the district court gave him exactly what his lawyer asked, United States v. Thompson, 289 F.3d 524, 526 (8th Cir. 2002). LaFontaine waived his right to appeal these conditions of supervised release. -12-