Court Opinion

ID: 6345373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-05-31 16:00:25.489866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:49:20.299342
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
         For the Eighth Circuit
     ___________________________

             No. 21-3384
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

              Otis Ray Mays, Jr.

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
      ___________________________

             No. 21-3385
     ___________________________

          United States of America

     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                        v.

              Otis Ray Mays, Jr.

   lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                   ____________

 Appeals from United States District Court
       for the District of Minnesota
               ____________

         Submitted: May 13, 2022
           Filed: May 31, 2022
              [Unpublished]
              ____________
Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Otis Mays appeals the district court’s1 reimposition of a special condition of
supervised release limiting his computer use and internet access, following this
court’s remand for resentencing on his wire fraud and child pornography convictions.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by reimposing the special condition. See United States v. Jennings, 930 F.3d 1024,
1026 (8th Cir. 2019) (reviewing imposition of special conditions of supervised
release for abuse of discretion). The district court adequately explained why it
reimposed the special condition, and, because it did not clearly err in finding that
Mays’s offense involved computer use and internet access, the special condition was
reasonably related to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Turner,
781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing factual findings for clear error); United
States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490, 493 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing district court’s
broad discretion to impose special conditions that are reasonably related to the § 3553
factors, involve no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary, and are
consistent with any pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements).
Accordingly, we affirm.
                       ______________________________

      1
      The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

                                         -2-