805 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2015), 14-3206, United States v. Flaugher

Docket Nº:14-3206
Citation:805 F.3d 1249
Opinion Judge:MATHESON, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WALTER R. FLAUGHER, Defendant - Appellant
Attorney:Daniel T. Hansmeier, Appellate Chief (Melody Brannon Evans, Federal Public Defender, with him on the briefs), Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas, appearing for Defendant-Appellant. Carrie N. Capwell, Assistant United States Attorney (Barry R. Gri...
Judge Panel:Before KELLY, SEYMOUR, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:November 13, 2015
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
SUMMARY

Walter Flaugher pled guilty in 2006 to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, for which he was sentenced to 57 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. In 2014, the U.S. Probation Office filed a petition to revoke his supervised release, alleging several violations. Flaugher stipulated to one of the violations, use of methamphetamine. The district court revoked his... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1249

805 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2015)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WALTER R. FLAUGHER, Defendant - Appellant

No. 14-3206

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

November 13, 2015

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. (D.C. No. 2:06-CR-20043-JWL-8).

Daniel T. Hansmeier, Appellate Chief (Melody Brannon Evans, Federal Public Defender, with him on the briefs), Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas, appearing for Defendant-Appellant.

Carrie N. Capwell, Assistant United States Attorney (Barry R. Grissom, United States Attorney, with her on the brief), Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, Kansas City, Kansas, appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before KELLY, SEYMOUR, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

MATHESON, Circuit Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Walter Flaugher pled guilty in 2006 to one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841 and 846. He was sentenced to 57 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. In 2014, the U.S. Probation Office filed a petition to revoke his supervised release, alleging several violations. Mr. Flaugher stipulated to one of the violations--use of methamphetamine. The district court revoked his supervised release, resentenced him to another 12 months and 1 day in prison, and imposed 3 years of supervised release. Over his counsel's objections, the court also imposed the following supervised release condition:

[H]e shall submit his person, house, residence, vehicles, papers, business, and place of employment and any property under his control to a search conducted by the United States probation officer at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner based upon reasonable suspicion of contraband or evidence of a violation of condition of release. Failure to submit to a search may be grounds for revocation. He shall warn any other residents that the premises may be subject to be searched pursuant to this condition.

Aplt. Br. at 5-6.

On appeal, Mr. Flaugher argues that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) prohibits district courts from imposing warrantless-search conditions except in cases involving felons required to register under SORNA the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (" SORNA" ). He challenges the condition imposed on him because he is not required to register under SORNA.

Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a), we affirm.

II. DISCUSSION

The issue is whether a district court may impose a warrantless-search condition under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) on a person who is not a felon required to register under SORNA.

A. Standard of Review

" When the defendant objects to a special condition of supervised release at the time it is announced, this Court reviews for abuse of discretion." United States v. Dougan, 684 F.3d 1030, 1034 (10th Cir. 2012). " Thus, we will not disturb the district court's ruling absent a showing it was based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or an erroneous conclusion of law or manifests a clear error of judgment." United States v. Bear, 769 F.3d 1221, 1226 (10th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted).

Because Mr. Flaugher challenges the district court's...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP