Background
Robert J. Nunes appealed his sentence following the revocation of his supervised release. He argued that the district court plainly erred by imposing an unconditional ban on contact with minors as part of a new ten-year supervised release term. Nunes contended the condition was not narrowly tailored to balance his liberty interest in associating with minors against the government’s interest in public protection.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the plain error standard of review. It acknowledged that the issue might be subject to reasonable dispute but concluded Nunes failed to show that the district court clearly or obviously erred under existing precedent. The court cited United States v. Weatherton and Puckett v. United States in its analysis.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the Fifth Circuit’s deference to district courts when imposing associational bans on supervised release, requiring a high bar of clear or obvious error to overturn such conditions.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download