United States v. Lacey Baxter Moore ( 2020 )

Case: 20-10231 Document: 00515556916 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 20-10231 September 9, 2020
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Lacey Renee Baxter Moore, also known as Lacey Kittrell,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-304-9
Before Jones, Barksdale, and Stewart, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Lacey Renee Baxter Moore pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess,
with intent to distribute, methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
She was sentenced, inter alia, to 144-months’ imprisonment and three-years’
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10231 Document: 00515556916 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2020
No. 20-10231
supervised release. As she did at sentencing, Moore challenges the
substantive reasonableness of a standard condition of supervised release
which allows “a probation officer to visit [her] at any time at home or
elsewhere”. She contends the standard visitation condition is not narrowly
tailored, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2), because it lacks any limits on
when and where a probation officer may visit her.
This court reviews for abuse of discretion Moore’s preserved
substantive-reasonableness challenge. United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220,
224 (5th Cir. 2013). Although district courts have wide discretion in
imposing supervised-release conditions, that discretion is limited by statute.
See § 3583(d); see also United States v. Duke, 788 F.3d 392, 398 (5th Cir.
2015). Supervised-release conditions must involve “no greater deprivation
of liberty than is reasonably necessary” for the purposes of deterring criminal
conduct, protecting the public from further crimes of defendant, and
providing defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical
care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3583(d)(2); 3553(a).
Given the circumstances of this case, such as Moore’s extensive
criminal history, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding
a visitation condition without time or location restrictions was not a greater
deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. See United States v. Payton,
959 F.3d 654, 657 (5th Cir. 2020).
AFFIRMED.
2