Court Opinion

ID: 9949758
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 16:00:33.007911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:36.257208
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-2633
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                                 Jeremy Lynn Orr

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin
                                  ____________

                            Submitted: January 8, 2024
                              Filed: March 12, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Jeremy Orr pleaded guilty to receiving and distributing child pornography,
18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). Not two weeks into his supervised release, his probation
officer found an unauthorized smartphone in his car and a gun in his apartment.
The district court1 revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months

      1
        The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
in prison and 20 years of supervision, reimposing the conditions of his original
sentence.

       Orr argues that two special conditions involve a greater deprivation of
liberty than reasonably necessary and are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad:
the prohibitions against (1) possessing any pornographic or erotic material and (2)
possessing or using any electronic device with internet access. But his challenge
comes too late because he did not object when the conditions were first imposed.
United States v. Simpson, 932 F.3d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir. 2019) (“[Defendant’s]
objection to the court reimposing old supervised release conditions amounts to an
improper collateral attack of the underlying sentence.”).

       We are also satisfied that Orr’s within-Guidelines supervised release term is
substantively reasonable. United States v. Dixon, 52 F.4th 731, 733–34 (8th Cir.
2022) (reviewing for abuse of discretion). The district court presided over both
Orr’s initial and revocation sentencings, so it was aware of the underlying offense
conduct and his history of substance abuse and mental health struggles. See United
States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 917–18 (8th Cir. 2009). And it worried that a man
who had sex with a 14-year-old girl and shared pornography of her online would
act again. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C) (courts must consider the need “to
protect the public from further crimes of the defendant”). The court had “wide
latitude to weigh the § 3553(a) factors” and arrived at a reasonable sentence.
United States v. Barber, 4 F.4th 689, 692 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam); 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e). That Orr wishes things had shaken out differently is no reason to find
an abuse of discretion.

      We affirm the district court’s judgment.
                      ______________________________

                                        -2-