Court Opinion

ID: 9364828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 14:01:00.055128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.669315
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-10820    Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-10820
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       TOBY E. BIVINS,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Middle District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 7:11-cr-00019-HL-TQL-1
USCA11 Case: 22-10820      Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 22-10820

                            ____________________

       Before JORDAN, ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Appellant Toby Bivins appeals his sentence imposed by the
       district court following the third revocation of Bivins’s term of su-
       pervised release. Bivins specifically challenges Standard Conditions
       8 and 12, which the district court imposed on him as conditions of
       supervised release under U.S.S.G. §§ 5D1.3(c)(8) and (12). For the
       first time on appeal, Bivins argues that the district court erred in
       failing to except his boyfriend from Standard Condition 8, which
       restricts a sentenced individual, on supervised release, from inter-
       acting and communicating with known felons or persons involved
       in criminal activity. He also argues, for the first time on appeal,
       that the district court erred in imposing Standard Conditions 8 and
       12 in his supervised release because those conditions unconstitu-
       tionally delegate judicial authority to a probation officer. Having
       read the parties’ briefs and reviewed the record, we affirm Bivins’s
       sentence.
                                         I.
             Generally, we review the terms of supervised release for an
       abuse of discretion. United States v. Nash, 438 F.3d 1302, 1304
       (11th Cir. 2006). However, when a defendant fails to object to a
       condition of supervised release before the district court, we will re-
       view for plain error only. Id. To preserve for appeal a challenge to
       a condition of supervised release, a defendant must “clearly state
USCA11 Case: 22-10820      Document: 28-1     Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 3 of 7

       22-10820               Opinion of the Court                         3

       the grounds for an objection in the district court.” United States v.
       Carpenter, 803 F.3d 1224, 1237 (11th Cir. 2015). Plain error occurs
       when (1) there was an error, (2) that was plain, (3) that affected the
       defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) that seriously affected the
       fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
       United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228, 1237-38 (11th Cir. 2018).
       “When neither this Court nor the Supreme Court ha[s] resolved an
       issue, there can be no plain error in regard to that issue.” United
       States v. Vereen, 920 F.3d 1300, 1312 (11th Cir. 2019).
                                        II.
               When a district court finds that a defendant violated a con-
       dition of supervised release, the district court may revoke the term
       of supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment after con-
       sidering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). A dis-
       trict court may also impose a term of supervised release in addition
       to a sentence of imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h). Further, a dis-
       trict court may impose conditions of supervised release in accord-
       ance with the classes of conditions specified in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3, in-
       cluding “standard” conditions set forth in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c).
       United States v. Ridgeway, 319 F.3d 1313, 1315 (11th Cir. 2003).
       The standard conditions “are recommended for supervised re-
       lease,” and “[s]everal of the conditions are expansions of the condi-
       tions required by statute.” U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c).
              As expressed in § 5D1.3(c), Standard Condition 8 provides:
USCA11 Case: 22-10820     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023    Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-10820

                    The defendant shall not communicate
                    or interact with someone the defendant
                    knows is engaged in criminal activity. If
                    the defendant knows someone has been
                    convicted of a felony, the defendant
                    shall not knowingly communicate or in-
                    teract with that person without first get-
                    ting the permission of the probation of-
                    ficer.
             Id. § 5D1.3(c)(8) (emphasis added).
              The record shows that Bivins did not state clearly an objec-
       tion to Standard Condition 8 on the grounds he asserts on appeal.
       Rather, his only objection in the district court was to the district
       court’s upward variance from the applicable guideline range.
       Bivins contends on appeal that the district court erred by imposing
       Standard Condition 8 because it was not reasonably related to the
       sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and because except-
       ing his boyfriend, a convicted felon, from the scope of that condi-
       tion would not have been inconsistent with any policy statement
       of the Sentencing Commission.
              Bivins cannot show that the district court’s inclusion of his
       boyfriend, a convicted felon, within the scope of Standard Condi-
       tion 8 is an error that is plain. He has cited no binding precedent
       from this Court or the Supreme Court that holds that a district
       court errs by failing to exclude an individual from Standard Condi-
       tion 8 under these circumstances. Thus, Bivins’s challenge fails be-
       cause he cannot show the district court plainly erred in this regard.
USCA11 Case: 22-10820     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023    Page: 5 of 7

       22-10820               Opinion of the Court                        5

       Vereen, 920 F.3d at 1312. Moreover, Bivins cannot demonstrate
       that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed this
       condition because the record shows that the district court consid-
       ered and weighed the relevant sentencing factors in imposing
       Bivins’s term of supervised release and its associated conditions.
       This acknowledgement by the district court will suffice, and we
       discern no abuse of discretion. See United States v. Turner, 474
       F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007); United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d
       1353, 1363 (11th Cir. 2006) (noting that our court does not substi-
       tute its judgment in weighing the relevant factors under section
       3553(a)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s imposition of
       these conditions to Bivins’s supervised release term.
                                       III.
              When appropriate, we will review constitutional issues de
       novo. Nash, 438 F.3d at 1304. However, when the defendant fails
       to object before the district court, this Court will review for plain
       error only. Id.
             As expressed in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c), Standard Condition 12
       provides:
                    If the probation officer determines that
                    the defendant poses a risk to another
                    person (including an organization), the
                    probation officer may require the de-
                    fendant to notify the person about the
                    risk and the defendant shall comply with
                    that instruction. The probation officer
USCA11 Case: 22-10820      Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023     Page: 6 of 7

       6                       Opinion of the Court                 22-10820

                     may contact the person and confirm
                     that the defendant has notified the per-
                     son about the risk.
              U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c)(12) (emphasis added).
               In determining whether a court has improperly delegated
       the judicial authority of sentencing, “we have drawn a distinction
       between the delegation to a probation officer of a ‘ministerial act
       or support service’ and ‘the ultimate responsibility’ of imposing the
       sentence.” Nash, 438 F.3d at 1304-05 (citation omitted). “Although
       a probation officer is an arm of the court, and is statutorily man-
       dated to perform any duty that the court may designate, Article III
       courts may not delegate the ultimate responsibility of judicial func-
       tions to probation officers.” Id. at 1305 (quotation marks, altera-
       tions, and citations omitted). However, “[b]ecause probation offic-
       ers play a vital role in effectuating the sentences imposed by district
       courts, courts may delegate duties to probation officers to support
       judicial functions, as long as a judicial officer retains and exercises
       ultimate responsibility.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omit-
       ted).
             “We have upheld conditions of supervised release that une-
       quivocally impose a requirement on the defendant, but subject the
       defendant to the ‘approval’ or ‘direction’ of a probation officer.”
       Id. Additionally, in Nash, we held that the district court did not
       improperly delegate a judicial function to a probation officer in im-
       posing a condition that Nash “notify third parties of risks that may
       be occasioned by [Nash’s] criminal record or personal history or
USCA11 Case: 22-10820     Document: 28-1      Date Filed: 01/20/2023    Page: 7 of 7

       22-10820               Opinion of the Court                        7

       characteristics as directed by the probation officer.” Id. at 1306
       (quotation marks and emphasis omitted).
              The record indicates that Bivins did not object to the consti-
       tutionality of Standard Condition 8 or 12 before the district court.
       Thus, we review Bivins’s constitutional arguments for plain error.
       Nash, 438 F.3d at 1304. First, as to Standard Condition 8, there is
       no binding precedent from this Court or the Supreme Court hold-
       ing that Standard Condition 8 unconstitutionally delegates judicial
       authority to a probation officer. Accordingly, Bivins cannot show
       plain error as to Standard Condition 8. Vereen, 920 F.3d at 1312.
              Second, we conclude that the district court did not err in im-
       posing Standard Condition 12 because the condition did not in-
       volve improper delegation of judicial authority. See Nash, 438 F.3d
       at 1306. As we explained in Nash, the condition authorizes the pro-
       bation officer to direct “when, where, and to whom notice must be
       given,” but does not authorize the probation officer to “unilaterally
       decide” whether Bivins shall be subject to the condition at all.
       U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c)(12); Nash, 438 F.3d at 1306. Thus, the district
       court did not plainly err in imposing Standard Condition 12, and
       we affirm in this respect as well.
              Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we af-
       firm the district court’s imposition of Bivins’s sentence.
             AFFIRMED.