Court Opinion

ID: 9402119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 15:00:48.21376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:57.337477
License: Public Domain

22-2732
     United States v. Stiteler

                                 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 City of
 3   New York, on the 15th day of June, two thousand twenty-three.
 4
 5   PRESENT:
 6               ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
 7               RICHARD C. WESLEY,
 8               MICHAEL H. PARK,
 9                     Circuit Judges.
10   _____________________________________
11
12   United States of America,
13
14                                Appellee,
15
16                        v.                                              22-2732
17
18   Aron Whitney Stiteler,
19
20                     Defendant-Appellant.
21   _____________________________________
22
23   FOR APPELLEE:                                           MONICA J. RICHARDS, Assistant
24                                                           United States Attorney, for Trini E.
25                                                           Ross, United States Attorney for the
26                                                           Western District of New York,
27                                                           Buffalo, N.Y.
28
29   FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:                                TIMOTHY P. MURPHY, Federal Public
30                                                           Defender’s Office, Western District
31                                                           of New York, Buffalo, N.Y.
 1          Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New

 2   York (Wolford, J.).

 3          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

 4   DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 5          Aron Whitney Stiteler pleaded guilty to making “repeated telephone calls . . . solely to

 6   harass any specific person,” namely, certain members of the United States Congress, in violation

 7   of 47 U.S.C. § 223(a)(1)(E).     The district court (Wolford, J.) sentenced him to 22 months’

 8   incarceration and one year of supervised release.       Stiteler challenges only one condition of

 9   supervised release: that he “submit to a search of his person, property, vehicle, place of residence

10   or any other property under his control, based upon reasonable suspicion, and permit confiscation

11   of any evidence or contraband discovered.” App’x at A-164.          The district court imposed the

12   condition on the recommendation of the probation department’s Presentence Investigation Report

13   over Stiteler’s objection. Stiteler appeals that decision. We assume the parties’ familiarity with

14   the facts, the procedural posture, and the issues on appeal.

15          “[A] district court may impose special conditions of supervised release that are reasonably

16   related to certain statutory factors governing sentencing, involve no greater deprivation of liberty

17   than is reasonably necessary to implement the statutory purposes of sentencing, and are consistent

18   with pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements.” United States v. Eaglin, 913 F.3d 88,

19   94 (2d Cir. 2019) (cleaned up); see also U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b) (directing district courts to consider

20   certain 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors).    “A district court is required to make an individualized

21   assessment when determining whether to impose a special condition of supervised release, and to

                                                      2
 1   state on the record the reason for imposing it; the failure to do so is error.” United States v. Betts,

 2   886 F.3d 198, 202 (2d Cir. 2018).     “We review special conditions of supervised release for abuse

 3   of discretion.”    United States v. Farooq, 58 F.4th 687, 694 (2d Cir. 2023).

 4             We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s imposition of the search condition.

 5   As the district court explained, Stiteler “engaged in [the offense] conduct from his home,” and

 6   “would be more hesitant to engage in more illegal activity if he knows that . . . it could prompt a

 7   search of his premises or himself.” App’x at A-155.        The need for deterrence was particularly

 8   acute given Stiteler’s history of recidivism during pretrial supervision. See id. at A-151.       And

 9   for the same reasons, the search condition furthered “rehabilitation purposes” and was “warranted

10   to protect the community.”      Id. at A-155; cf. United States v. Ettinger, 723 F. App’x 38, 40-41

11   (2d Cir. 2018) (affirming a search condition when the prospect of discovery may deter the

12   defendant from recidivating); United States v. Lamica, 689 F. App’x 91, 92-93 (2d Cir. 2017)

13   (same).     The district court likewise did not abuse its discretion in finding that “the search

14   condition is not depriving Mr. Stiteler of liberty greater than necessary because it requires the

15   reasonable suspicion before the search can be conducted.”       App’x at A-155; see United States v.

16   Rakhmatov, No. 21-151, 2022 WL 16984536, at *3 (2d Cir. Nov. 17, 2022) (explaining that

17   “limitations on searches to circumstances in which reasonable suspicion . . . exists . . . ensure that

18   the condition imposes no greater restraint on liberty than is reasonably necessary” (cleaned up)).

19             We have considered Stiteler’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

20   For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

21                                                  FOR THE COURT:
22                                                  Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
23

                                                       3