Opinion ID: 200235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Overbreadth Challenges

Text: 5 U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3 governs the conditions of supervised release. The court may impose additional conditions where they are reasonably related to the offense and the history of the defendant, as long as they do not deprive the defendant of a greater amount of liberty than is reasonably necessary to deter criminal conduct and to protect the public from the defendant. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b) (2000). 2 The Federal Sentencing Commission (the Commission) provides a list of special conditions that it recommends in specified circumstances. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d). We now consider the special conditions that Allen challenges. 6
7 Allen argues that the provisions requiring that he provide the probation officer with access to any requested financial information and limiting his ability to obtain credit are overbroad in violation of section 5D1.3(b). 3 Far from committing error, the district court imposed special conditions that the Commission specifically recommends for defendants, such as Allen, who are paying fines in installments. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(2)-(3). Consequently, Allen has not established that the district court imposed these conditions in clear error.
8 Allen next challenges the special condition prohibiting his possession of alcohol and his presence at establishments primarily serving alcohol. The condition provides: 9 Defendant shall not at any time be in possession, joint, sole, actual or constructive, of any alcoholic beverage. He shall not associate with individuals consuming alcoholic beverages, shall not frequent business establishments whose primary product to the consumer is alcoholic beverages, and shall not use any medication containing alcohol without permission from the probation officer or a prescription from a licensed physician. 10 Allen argues that the condition is overbroad and that there is not an adequate relationship between the nature and circumstances of his offense and the special condition imposed. 11 Allen has not shown that the alcohol condition is so broadly drawn or divorced from the nature and circumstances of his offense that it constitutes clear error. The record contains ample evidence of Allen's history of alcohol abuse, including a conviction for driving while under the influence of alcohol. In addition, defense counsel argued that Allen's mental illness contributed to the commission of his crime, and that Allen's abuse of alcohol exacerbated the symptoms of the mental illness. Based on the record, the district court did not commit obvious error in concluding that Allen's history of alcohol abuse required a stiff prohibition, 4 see United States v. Thurlow, 44 F.3d 46, 47 (1st Cir.1995) (upholding a special condition prohibiting the use and possession of alcohol where the record showed a history of alcohol abuse), and that there was an adequate relationship between the nature and circumstances of the offense, the demonstrated propensities of the offender and the special condition attached to the offender's release, Brown, 235 F.3d at 7. Far from erring, the district court created an alcohol prohibition reasonably related to Allen's history of alcohol abuse and to permissible goals of supervised release, including Allen's rehabilitation and protection of the public.