Background
Jamie Hackney pleaded guilty to production and transportation of child pornography. He waived his right to appeal but reserved the ability to appeal a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum. The district court sentenced him to fifty years of imprisonment and fifteen years of supervised release with conditions prohibiting contact with minors and requiring financial reporting. Hackney appealed, arguing the conditions violated the reasonableness requirements of Section thirty-five hundred eighty-three D.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the appeal waiver de novo. It found the waiver was knowing and voluntary and applied to the circumstances. The court held that the exception for appeals of a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum applies only to quantitative elements. A challenge to supervised release conditions under Section thirty-five hundred eighty-three D targets qualitative conditions, not the temporal length of the sentence. Therefore, such challenges are barred by the waiver.
What it means going forward
Defendants who waive their right to appeal in plea agreements cannot challenge supervised release conditions based on Section thirty-five hundred eighty-three D unless the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum time limit.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download