Court Opinion

ID: 9406243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 15:00:43.98956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:27.761477
License: Public Domain

21-3034-cr
     United States v. Overstreet

                                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                       FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                             SUMMARY ORDER

     RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.
     CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS
     PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
     PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A
     SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY
     MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE
     (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY
     ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
     COUNSEL.

 1         At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
 2   held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the
3    City of New York, on the 30th day of June, two thousand twenty-three.
4
 5           PRESENT: GERARD E. LYNCH,
 6                            RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
 7                            JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
 8                                    Circuit Judges.
 9           ------------------------------------------------------------------
10           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
11
12                           Appellee,
13
14                     v.                                                         No. 21-3034-cr
15
16           SEAN OVERSTREET,
17
18                            Defendant-Appellant.
19           ------------------------------------------------------------------
20
21
22           FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:                                  ROBIN CHRISTINE SMITH (Leean
23                                                                     Othman, on the brief), Law

                                                         1
 1                                                          Office of Robin C. Smith, Esq.,
 2                                                          P.C., San Rafael, CA
 3
 4         FOR APPELLEE:                                    BURTON T. RYAN, JR., Assistant
 5                                                          United States Attorney (Jo Ann
 6                                                          M. Navickas, Assistant United
 7                                                          States Attorney, on the brief), for
 8                                                          Breon Peace, United States
 9                                                          Attorney for the Eastern
10                                                          District of New York,
11                                                          Brooklyn, NY
12
13         Appeal from a judgment of conviction entered in the United States District

14   Court for the Eastern District of New York (Denis R. Hurley, Judge).

15         UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

16   AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

17         Sean Overstreet appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on

18   November 19, 2021 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

19   New York (Hurley, J.), after a guilty plea. 1 The District Court sentenced

20   Overstreet principally to two terms of 180 months’ imprisonment and one term

21   of 120 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrently. As relevant here, the District

22   Court also imposed special conditions of supervised release requiring Overstreet

23   to disclose all of his financial records to the Probation Department, obtain the

     1 Overstreet pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute,
     transportation of stolen motor vehicles, and money laundering conspiracy.

                                                 2
 1   Probation Department’s permission before opening any new financial accounts,

 2   and disclose his monthly income. Although the Probation Department did not

 3   include those special conditions in its Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (“PSR”),

 4   it later recommended that the District Court impose them in its Revised Sentence

 5   Recommendation. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts

 6   and the record of prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to

 7   explain our decision to affirm.

 8         On appeal, Overstreet challenges the special conditions of supervised

 9   release on two grounds. First, he argues that the District Court failed to notify

10   the parties that it was considering imposing the special conditions in advance of

11   the sentencing hearing and failed to perform an individualized assessment and

12   state on the record its reasons for imposing the conditions. Second, he argues

13   that the District Court improperly imposed the special conditions without orally

14   pronouncing them at sentencing.

15         We review a district court’s decision to impose special conditions of

16   supervised release for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Kunz, 68 F.4th

17   748, 758 (2d Cir. 2023). Here, Overstreet waived any objections to the special

18   conditions at his sentencing hearing. During the hearing, the District Court

                                              3
 1   asked Overstreet, “Have you reviewed with your attorney the materials

 2   generated by the probation department which includes the presentence report,

 3   the addendum to the report, and also a recommendation from probation as to

 4   what the appropriate sentence would be[?]” Overstreet responded that he had

 5   reviewed the materials with counsel. The District Court then asked Overstreet’s

 6   attorney whether he had “any problem with the special conditions that [were]

 7   recommended by probation.” The attorney answered, “No objection.” The

 8   District Court also explicitly noted that the Probation Department’s

 9   recommended special conditions had been made available to both parties and

10   proposed incorporating the text of the special conditions by reference into the

11   judgment, rather than reading them into the record. Overstreet’s attorney

12   specifically agreed that such an approach would be “satisfactory.” Overstreet

13   has thus waived his challenge to these special conditions of supervised release on

14   appeal, and we affirm the District Court’s imposition of the challenged

15   conditions.

16

                                             4
1         We have considered Overstreet’s remaining arguments 2 and conclude that

2   they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District

3   Court is AFFIRMED.

4                                          FOR THE COURT:
5                                          Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

    2To the extent that Overstreet also challenges the reasonableness of the special
    conditions, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its broad discretion in
    imposing them. See Kunz, 68 F.4th at 758. It is apparent from the PSR that Overstreet
    “funneled approximately $500,000” through a “money laundering organization,” which
    “converted . . . cash into checks for [Overstreet] to deposit.” The special conditions
    were thus “reasonably related” to the “‘nature and circumstances’” of Overstreet’s
    oﬀenses, which involved unlawful ﬁnancial transactions. United States v. Betts, 886
    F.3d 198, 202 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b)).

                                              5