United States v. Clarence Lee Moree , 373 F. App'x 10 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                          [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________           FILED
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    No. 09-13911         ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    APRIL 8, 2010
    Non-Argument Calendar
    JOHN LEY
    ________________________
    CLERK
    D. C. Docket No. 09-80033-CR-KAM
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    CLARENCE LEE MOREE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    _________________________
    (April 8, 2010)
    Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Clarence Lee Moree appeals his sentence for three counts of attempting to
    smuggle aliens into the United States for profit, in violation of 
    8 U.S.C. § 1324
    (a)(2)(B)(ii). On appeal, Moree asserts the special conditions to his
    supervised release were not justified. Specifically, Moree contends the special
    condition requiring him to attend sex offender treatment is not justified because his
    only prior sex offense occurred twenty years ago and thus is too remote in time.
    Moree similarly claims he should not be required to attend substance abuse
    treatment because there is no evidence indicating he has used cocaine since 2002.
    “We review the imposition of special conditions of supervised release for
    abuse of discretion.” United States v. Moran, 
    573 F.3d 1132
    , 1137 (11th Cir.
    2009). We will find an abuse of discretion “only if we have a ‘definite and firm
    conviction that the [district] court committed a clear error of judgment in the
    conclusion it reached.’” (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Taylor,
    
    338 F.3d 1280
    , 1283 (11th Cir. 2003)). A “district court may impose any
    condition of supervised release it deems appropriate so long as it comports with the
    factors enumerated in § 3553(a).” United States v. Zinn, 
    321 F.3d 1084
    , 1089
    (11th Cir. 2003). When imposing special conditions on supervised release, a
    district court must consider the history and characteristics of the defendant, as well
    as what conditions best provide for adequate punishment and rehabilitation of the
    2
    defendant, protect society at large, and accomplish the purposes of sentencing.
    U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b); 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (c). Each factor is an independent
    consideration to be weighed, and as such, a special condition need not be supported
    by each factor. Moran, 
    573 F.3d at 1139
    .
    The Sentencing Guidelines identify special conditions of supervised release
    that a district court may order, including that a defendant participate in substance
    abuse treatment and mental health treatment. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(4), (5). District
    courts may impose these conditions to address prior unrelated crimes. United
    States v. Bull, 
    214 F.3d 1275
    , 1276–78 (11th Cir. 2000). We have previously
    found that a prior conviction dating back nine years is not too remote to support a
    special condition of supervised release and that other factors, such as failure to
    register as a sex offender or residing with a minor after being convicted of lewd
    and lascivious activity with a minor, may negate a defendant’s argument that an
    offense is too remote to be considered for special conditions. Moran, 
    573 F.3d at 1139
    .
    We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing
    special conditions on Moree’s supervised release. Moree’s psychological
    evaluation and referral to a sex offender treatment program just months before his
    sentencing rebuts his assertion that the prior conviction was too remote to support
    3
    the condition. The record demonstrates the district court considered the § 3553(a)
    factors and found that, based on Moree’s history and the public interest, evaluation
    for sex offender treatment fulfilled the goals of sentencing. Further, given Moree’s
    history and characteristics, including his past drug convictions and drug use,
    evaluation for substance abuse treatment is a reasonable condition that seeks to
    adequately rehabilitate the defendant. The district court did not commit a clear
    error in judgment, and we accordingly affirm the special conditions on Moree’s
    supervised release.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-13911

Citation Numbers: 373 F. App'x 10

Judges: Barkett, Black, Hull, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 4/8/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024