Court Opinion

ID: 9962041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 16:02:05.612313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:42.257661
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 24-1149
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                                 Shannon Smalley

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

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

                            Submitted: April 17, 2024
                              Filed: April 22, 2024
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before BENTON, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Shannon Smalley appeals a new special condition of supervised release that
the district court imposed after it revoked his supervised release and sentenced him
to 6 months in prison and 4 years of supervised release. Having jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court reverses and remands.
       Smalley challenges a condition restricting him from being self-employed or
obtaining secondary employment. Upon careful review, this court concludes that
the restriction did not satisfy the applicable statutory and Guidelines requirements,
as the record does not show that there was a connection between Smalley’s
secondary employment and the offense of conviction, or that the restriction was
necessary to protect the public. See 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5) (court may impose
condition of supervised release prohibiting or limiting defendant from engaging in a
specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship
to the conduct constituting the offense); U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5 (court may impose
occupational restriction only if it determines that a reasonably direct relationship
existed between defendant’s occupation and the conduct relevant to the offense of
conviction, and that the restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the public
because there is reason to believe that, absent such restriction, defendant will
continue to engage in unlawful conduct similar to that for which he was convicted);
United States v. Carlson, 406 F.3d 529, 531 (8th Cir. 2005) (review of sentencing
judge’s imposition of special condition of supervised release is generally for abuse
of discretion, but is for plain error when defendant fails to object); United States v.
Cooper, 171 F.3d 582, 585-86 (8th Cir. 1999) (broad use of occupational
prohibitions is disfavored; imposition of prohibition was an abuse of discretion
because the condition bore no relationship to offense of conviction); see also United
States v. Stepp, 680 F.3d 651, 672 (6th Cir. 2012) (district court’s concern that
defendant was too old to maintain full-time employment as a boxer was unrelated to
defendant’s underlying drug trafficking offense and therefore was not a valid reason
for imposing an occupational restriction).

      The special condition prohibiting Smalley from being self-employed or
obtaining secondary employment is vacated, and the case is remanded for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
                       ______________________________

                                         -2-