United States v. Devon Hunt ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •  United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    Argued November 10, 2016          Decided December 20, 2016
    No. 15–3084
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    APPELLEE
    v.
    DEVON CLEVELAND H UNT, ALSO KNOWN AS MAN,
    APPELLANT
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Columbia
    (No. 1:13-cr-00306-1)
    Edward C. Sussman, appointed by the court, argued the
    cause and filed the briefs for the appellant.
    Jason B. Feldman, Assistant United States Attorney,
    argued the cause for the appellee. Elizabeth Trosman and
    George P. Eliopoulos, Assistant United States Attorneys, were
    with him on the brief.
    Before: HENDERSON and PILLARD, Circuit Judges, and
    GINSBURG, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.
    2
    KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON , Circuit Judge: Devon
    Hunt has a long history of drug dealing. Over the years he has
    done much of his business at Potomac Gardens, a housing
    project in southeast Washington, D.C. In this case, he
    conspired to distribute heroin from there. He pleaded guilty
    pursuant to a plea agreement in which he anticipatorily waived
    his right to appeal certain aspects of his sentence. The district
    court sentenced him to 62 months of imprisonment, to be
    followed by five years of supervised release. Without saying
    why, the court conditioned Hunt’s supervised release on his
    staying away from Potomac Gardens. Hunt objected to the
    condition but not to the lack of explanation.
    Hunt now appeals, challenging both the stay-away
    condition and the district court’s failure to explain it. The
    government argues that Hunt’s appeal waiver bars his claims.
    We disagree. The waiver contains ambiguities that the court
    compounded during the plea colloquy. We construe the
    ambiguities against the government, which drafted the plea
    agreement and provided no clarification during the colloquy.
    We nevertheless uphold the stay-away condition because
    Hunt’s claims fail on the merits. First, because he did not
    object to the court’s failure to explain the condition, we review
    his procedural claim for plain error only. To the extent there
    was a procedural error, it was not plain and did not affect his
    substantial rights. Second, as a substantive matter, the
    condition is well within the court’s wide discretion. It will
    sensibly keep Hunt away from a neighborhood in which he has
    conducted numerous drug deals. And because he neither lives
    in the neighborhood nor alleges that he has family there, the
    condition does not unduly restrict his liberty.
    3
    I. BACKGROUND
    A. HUNT’S OFFENSES, PAST AND PRESENT
    Hunt has ties with Potomac Gardens but they are not to his
    credit. In 1987, he conducted at least three heroin deals there.
    In 1990, he assaulted police officers there. In 1994, he again
    participated in a series of heroin sales there. In the process, he
    threatened security guards and told a young child to keep an
    eye out for police. After he pleaded guilty to conspiracy
    based on the 1994 conduct, a long jail term kept him away from
    Potomac Gardens until at least 2006. In June 2009, the D.C.
    Housing Authority barred him from the complex. He was not
    deterred: narcotics officers found him at Potomac Gardens just
    a few months later.
    From late 2012 to early 2013, while residing elsewhere,
    Hunt once again used Potomac Gardens as a base of operations
    for drug dealing. He repeatedly sold heroin from there
    through a middleman to a confidential source. The deals
    involved a total of more than 100 grams of heroin. Based on
    those deals, the government charged him here with conspiring
    to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams
    or more of heroin, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. § 846
    . It also
    charged him with six related drug offenses.
    B. THE GUILTY PLEA
    Hunt was arrested and agreed to plead guilty to the
    conspiracy count in exchange for the government’s dismissal
    of the other counts. The parties stipulated to an imprisonment
    range of 60 to 65 months and a five-year term of supervised
    release. Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of
    Criminal Procedure, the parties further agreed that the
    sentencing range and five-year term of supervised release
    would bind the district court if it accepted the plea agreement.
    4
    Finally, Hunt agreed to waive some of his appellate rights with
    respect to his sentence. In pertinent part, the appeal waiver
    stated:
    [Hunt] understands that federal law,
    specifically 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    , affords
    defendants the right to appeal their sentences in
    certain circumstances. [Hunt] agrees to waive
    the right to appeal the sentence in this case,
    including any term of imprisonment, fine,
    forfeiture, award of restitution, term of
    supervised release, authority of the Court to set
    conditions of release, and the manner in which
    the sentence was determined, except to the
    extent the Court sentences [Hunt] above the
    statutory maximum or guidelines range
    determined by the Court or [Hunt] claims that
    [he] received ineffective assistance of counsel,
    in which case [he] would have the right to
    appeal the illegal sentence or above-guidelines
    sentence or raise on appeal a claim of
    ineffective assistance of counsel, but not to
    raise on appeal other issues regarding the
    sentencing.
    Plea Agreement, Dkt. No. 121 at 8.
    The district court held a plea hearing on the same day that
    Hunt signed the plea agreement. Midway through the
    hearing, the court told him that “you [are] generally giving up
    your rights to appeal,” with certain “exceptions.” Plea Tr. 31
    (Aug. 13, 2015). As relevant here, the court said Hunt could
    appeal if he “think[s] the sentence is illegal or it exceeds the
    applicable Sentencing Guidelines range or resulted from
    ineffective assistance of counsel . . . .” 
    Id.
     Later in the
    5
    hearing, the court again discussed the appeal waiver but did not
    suggest, as before, that the waiver permits appeal from an
    “illegal” sentence. 
    Id. at 51
    . The government did not object
    to the court’s inconsistent characterizations of the waiver or
    otherwise offer clarification. The court accepted Hunt’s
    guilty plea.
    C. SENTENCING
    In a presentencing memorandum, the government
    emphasized Hunt’s “long term connection” to criminal activity
    at Potomac Gardens and asked the district court to “order as a
    condition of [his] supervised release that [he] stay away from”
    the complex. Government’s Mem. in Aid of Sentencing, Dkt.
    No. 136 at 7, 9.
    At the sentencing hearing, the government renewed its
    request for a stay-away condition. In support, it listed the
    crimes that Hunt committed at Potomac Gardens. The
    government added that “[h]e hasn’t lived there.” Sent. Tr. 16
    (Nov. 20, 2015). Without disputing the government’s
    recitation—except to say that Hunt lived at Potomac Gardens
    “at one point”—defense counsel responded that a “stay[-]away
    order from a particular large area of town is inappropriate,”
    especially because Hunt “knows many people there . . . who
    have nothing to do with drugs or illegal activity.” 
    Id. at 24
    .
    Defense counsel also suggested that a stay-away condition was
    unnecessary because Hunt was forbidden “to engage in illegal
    activities” in any event. 
    Id.
    Consistent with the plea agreement, the district court
    sentenced Hunt to 62 months of imprisonment and five years of
    supervised release. As a condition of that release, the court
    ordered Hunt to stay away from Potomac Gardens.
    Specifically, the court stated:
    6
    [W]ithout the prior approval of the U.S.
    Probation Office, you shall not enter the
    grounds of the Potomac Gardens housing
    complex area in Southeast Washington, D.C.,
    or any structure in it, as bounded by the areas of
    Pennsylvania Avenue, Southeast, to the north;
    14th Street, Southeast, to the east; K Street,
    Southeast, to the south; and 11th Street,
    Southeast, to the west.
    Sent. Tr. 31. The court did not further explain the condition.
    After imposing sentence, it asked: “Are there any other matters
    we need to take up, Counsel?” 
    Id. at 32-33
    . Defense counsel
    responded: “I don’t believe so, sir.” 
    Id. at 33
    .
    II. ANALYSIS
    As noted, Hunt challenges the stay-away condition and the
    district court’s failure to explain it. Before addressing the
    merits, we consider whether the appeal waiver bars his claims
    ab initio. 1
    1
    Waiver of appellate rights is a threshold issue but not a
    jurisdictional one. United States v. Shemirani, 
    802 F.3d 1
    , 3 & n.1
    (D.C. Cir. 2015). We usually address it as an essential gateway to
    the merits, see, e.g., United States v. Adams, 
    780 F.3d 1182
    , 1183-84
    (D.C. Cir. 2015) (enforcing waiver without considering merits);
    United States v. Guillen, 
    561 F.3d 527
    , 529, 532 (D.C. Cir. 2009)
    (same), but not always, see, e.g., Shemirani, 802 F.3d at 3 (rejecting
    sentencing claims on merits where alleged waiver implicated
    “difficult” and “unsettled” issues better left for another day); United
    States v. Ransom, 
    756 F.3d 770
    , 773 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (taking similar
    approach). We decide the waiver issue here in the interest of sound
    judicial administration: the provision in Hunt’s plea agreement is
    one the government uses as a matter of standard practice in this
    Circuit, Oral Arg. Recording 18:54-19:18, but it is ambiguous for
    7
    A. HUNT’S APPEAL WAIVER DOES NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY
    BAR HIS CHALLENGES TO THE STAY-AWAY C ONDITION .
    Like a guilty plea more generally, see United States v.
    Ruiz, 
    536 U.S. 622
    , 631-32 (2002), an appeal waiver serves the
    important function of resolving a criminal case swiftly and
    finally, see United States v. Hahn, 
    359 F.3d 1315
    , 1318, 1325
    (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). It also gives the
    defendant “an additional bargaining chip” during plea
    negotiations and thereby “increases the probability he will
    reach a satisfactory plea agreement with the Government” in
    the first place. United States v. Guillen, 
    561 F.3d 527
    , 530
    (D.C. Cir. 2009). We have held that a “knowing, intelligent,
    and voluntary” appeal waiver, even though “anticipatory,”
    “generally may be enforced.” 
    Id. at 529
    . And we ordinarily
    dismiss an appeal falling within the scope of such a waiver.
    See, e.g., United States v. Adams, 
    780 F.3d 1182
    , 1184 (D.C.
    Cir. 2015); Guillen, 
    561 F.3d at 532
    ; see also, e.g., United
    States v. Ortega-Hernandez, 
    804 F.3d 447
    , 452 (D.C. Cir.
    2015) (partially dismissing appeal based on waiver); In re
    Sealed Case, 
    283 F.3d 349
    , 355 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (same). But
    cf. United States v. West, 
    392 F.3d 450
    , 460-61 (D.C. Cir.
    2004) (enforcing waiver but affirming district court’s
    judgment rather than dismissing appeal).
    But we will not bar the door to a criminal defendant’s
    appeal if his waiver only arguably or ambiguously forecloses
    his claims. A plea agreement is a contract and so we advert to
    principles of contract law in interpreting it. United States v.
    reasons we explain below. We strongly recommend that the
    government revise the provision. Although we do not purport to
    dictate particulars, one appropriate revision would be to change the
    phrase “term of supervised release” to “term or condition of
    supervised release.”
    8
    Henry, 
    758 F.3d 427
    , 431 (D.C. Cir. 2014); United States v.
    Jones, 
    58 F.3d 688
    , 691 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Ambiguity in a plea
    agreement, as in any other type of contract, is construed against
    the drafter. Henry, 758 F.3d at 431; In re Sealed Case, 
    702 F.3d 59
    , 63 n.2, 65 (D.C. Cir. 2012); see RESTATEMENT
    (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS § 206 (1981) (“In choosing among
    the reasonable meanings of a promise or agreement or a term
    thereof, that meaning is generally preferred which operates
    against the party who supplies the words or from whom a
    writing otherwise proceeds.”). The government drafted
    Hunt’s plea agreement.         If the agreement does not
    unambiguously preclude Hunt from appealing the issues he
    presents to us, he has not knowingly, intelligently and
    voluntarily waived them. In re Sealed Case, 702 F.3d at 65
    (where appeal waiver was “at the very least . . . ambiguous,”
    defendant “did not knowingly waive his right to appeal”);
    accord United States v. Binkholder, 
    832 F.3d 923
    , 926 (8th Cir.
    2016) (court enforces appeal waiver only if, inter alia, “a given
    appeal is clearly and unambiguously within [its] scope”)
    (internal quotation omitted); Hahn, 
    359 F.3d at 1325
     (holding
    similarly).
    Reviewing Hunt’s appeal waiver de novo, see Henry, 758
    F.3d at 431; Guillen, 
    561 F.3d at 531
    , we conclude that it does
    not unambiguously foreclose his challenges to the stay-away
    condition. Like statutory construction, see, e.g., Jimenez v.
    Quarterman, 
    555 U.S. 113
    , 118 (2009), interpretation of a plea
    agreement begins with plain language, see, e.g., Ramsey v. U.S.
    Parole Comm’n, 
    840 F.3d 853
    , 860 (D.C. Cir. 2016). The key
    language of the appeal waiver provides that Hunt “agrees to
    waive the right to appeal the sentence in this case, including
    any term of imprisonment, fine, forfeiture, award of restitution,
    term of supervised release, authority of the Court to set
    conditions of release, and the manner in which the sentence
    was determined . . . .” Plea Agreement, Dkt. No. 121 at 8.
    9
    One reasonable interpretation of the provision is that Hunt
    waived the right to appeal any aspect of his sentence, including
    the conditions of supervised release and the manner in which
    they were imposed. After all, the word “including” is
    ordinarily illustrative rather than limiting. See, e.g., Bloate v.
    United States, 
    559 U.S. 196
    , 206-07 (2010). Also, supervised
    release and the conditions thereof are part of “the sentence” by
    statutory default. 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3583
    (a), 3742(a)(3); see
    United States v. Higgins, 
    739 F.3d 733
    , 738 & nn.11-12 (5th
    Cir. 2014).
    We are not convinced, however, that the only permissible
    interpretation of the provision is the one set out above or that
    Hunt read it that way when he signed the plea agreement. He
    might reasonably have believed that the clauses about his
    “term of supervised release” and the “authority of the Court to
    set conditions of release” occupy the field as to supervised
    release, displacing the more general waiver in that context.
    See Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 
    498 U.S. 395
    , 407 (1991)
    (ordinarily, “[a] specific provision controls over one of more
    general application”). And neither clause about supervised
    release unambiguously bars the claims Hunt advances in this
    Court.
    By waiving his right to appeal any “term of supervised
    release,” Hunt did not necessarily give up the right to appeal a
    condition of such release. True, “term” can mean “condition.”
    BLACK’ S LAW D ICTIONARY 1698 (10th ed. 2014). But in the
    context of Hunt’s appeal waiver, it more likely connotes
    “duration.”     WEBSTER’ S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL
    DICTIONARY , UNABRIDGED 2358 (1993). The provision
    covers “any term of imprisonment . . . [and] term of supervised
    release.” Plea Agreement, Dkt. No. 121 at 8. As the
    government does not dispute, “term of imprisonment” refers to
    the duration of Hunt’s imprisonment. It likely follows that
    10
    “term of supervised release,” appearing in the same sentence as
    “term of imprisonment,” refers to the duration of Hunt’s
    supervised release. See Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 
    469 U.S. 153
    , 164-65 (1985) (“It is logical to assume that the same word
    has the same meaning when it is . . . used earlier in the same
    sentence.”); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS
    § 202(2) (contract “is interpreted as a whole”).
    Likewise, by waiving his right to challenge the “authority
    of the Court to set conditions of release,” Plea Agreement, Dkt.
    No. 121 at 8 (emphasis added), Hunt did not unambiguously
    give up the right to appeal the stay-away condition itself. He
    does not claim that the condition is ultra vires. Cf. United
    States v. Malenya, 
    736 F.3d 554
    , 557 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
    Instead, the gravamen of his appeal is that the condition “was
    imposed in violation of law,” 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    (a)(1), because
    the court did not adequately explain it under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (c) and because it is substantively unreasonable under 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3553
    (a) and 3583(d).
    Finally, instead of clarifying the plea agreement’s
    ambiguities, the plea colloquy exacerbated them. The district
    court indicated—without correction or qualification from the
    government—that one of the “exceptions” to Hunt’s
    “general[]” waiver permits him to appeal if he “think[s] the
    sentence is illegal . . . .” Plea Tr. 31. Consistent with our
    analysis above, Hunt might reasonably have understood the
    court to mean he could appeal a supervised release condition
    that, in his view, “was imposed in violation of law” because
    procedurally or substantively erroneous.        
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    (a)(1); see United States v. Godoy, 
    706 F.3d 493
    , 495
    (D.C. Cir. 2013) (in everyday usage, “illegal sentence” means
    one that is erroneous for legal reasons). A criminal defendant
    may take a district court’s “oral pronouncement” about a
    written waiver at face value even if it “mischaracterizes” the
    11
    waiver, Godoy, 706 F.3d at 495-96, and even if the waiver is
    otherwise unambiguous, see United States v. Kaufman, 
    791 F.3d 86
    , 88 (D.C. Cir. 2015); United States v. Wilken, 
    498 F.3d 1160
    , 1167-69 (10th Cir. 2007). A fortiori, and especially
    because the government made no objection and offered no
    clarification, see Kaufman, 791 F.3d at 88; Godoy, 706 F.3d at
    495, Hunt was entitled to rely on the court’s characterization of
    the ambiguous waiver as permitting him to appeal a supervised
    release condition resting on (in his view) procedural and
    substantive legal error.
    B. HUNT’S C HALLENGES TO THE STAY-AWAY CONDITION
    ARE MERITLESS.
    Although Hunt has not waived his claims about the
    stay-away condition, they lack merit.
    1. The district court did not commit
    plain procedural error.
    Hunt did not object at the sentencing hearing to the district
    court’s failure to substantiate the stay-away condition. Sent.
    Tr. 32-33 (Q: “Are there any other matters we need to take up,
    Counsel?” A: “I don’t believe so, sir.”). Accordingly, we
    review his procedural challenge for plain error only. United
    States v. Sullivan, 
    451 F.3d 884
    , 896 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
    (reviewing for plain error where defendant and his lawyer “sat
    in court while the judge pronounced the sentence, but they
    never voiced an objection on the ground that the District Court
    had failed to substantiate the conditions of release”); see
    United States v. Bigley, 
    786 F.3d 11
    , 13 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per
    curiam) (“When a defendant fails to timely raise a procedural
    reasonableness objection at sentencing, this Court reviews for
    12
    plain error.”). 2 Under the plain-error standard, Hunt must
    demonstrate that the district court (1) “committed error”; (2)
    “that is plain” or obvious; (3) “that affects [his] substantial
    rights”; and (4) that “‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity,
    or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” United States
    v. Locke, 
    664 F.3d 353
    , 357 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Johnson
    v. United States, 
    520 U.S. 461
    , 467 (1997)) (second alteration
    in Johnson). Assuming without deciding that Hunt meets the
    first requirement, we conclude that he cannot satisfy the other
    three.
    Neither the United States Supreme Court nor our Court
    has squarely decided whether a district court must make
    express findings to substantiate a special condition of
    supervised release. 3 That alone dooms Hunt’s claim of plain
    2
    Hunt notes that he objected to the condition itself.
    Appellant’s Br. 15. That objection did not preserve his claim about
    the lack of explanation. United States v. Deatherage, 
    682 F.3d 755
    ,
    763 (8th Cir. 2012) (“A general objection at sentencing to the
    substantive restriction imposed by a special condition is not enough
    to preserve an allegation that the court did not adequately explain its
    specific reasons for imposing the special condition.”); United States
    v. Watson, 
    582 F.3d 974
    , 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (similar holding).
    3
    Our sister circuits are divided on the issue. Compare United
    States v. Falor, 
    800 F.3d 407
    , 411 (7th Cir. 2015) (express findings
    required); United States v. Martinez-Torres, 
    795 F.3d 1233
    , 1238
    (10th Cir. 2015) (same); United States v. Salazar, 
    743 F.3d 445
    , 451
    (5th Cir. 2014) (same); United States v. Poitra, 
    648 F.3d 884
    , 889
    (8th Cir. 2011) (same); United States v. Miller, 
    594 F.3d 172
    , 184
    (3d Cir. 2010) (same); United States v. Armel, 
    585 F.3d 182
    , 186 (4th
    Cir. 2009) (same); United States v. Brogdon, 
    503 F.3d 555
    , 563 (6th
    Cir. 2007) (same); and United States v. Brown, 653 F. App’x 50, 51
    (2d Cir. 2016) (unpublished summary order) (same), with United
    States v. Garrasteguy, 
    559 F.3d 34
    , 42 (1st Cir. 2009) (express
    findings not required where reasons can be inferred from record);
    13
    procedural error. United States v. Terrell, 
    696 F.3d 1257
    ,
    1260 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (error ordinarily cannot be “plain”
    unless “a clear precedent in the Supreme Court or this circuit
    establishe[s] its erroneous character”). To cinch matters, we
    have held in an analogous case that a lack of findings, even if
    error, was not plain error. Sullivan, 
    451 F.3d at 896
     (affirming
    sentence where defendant did not contemporaneously object to
    district court’s “fail[ure] to substantiate the conditions of
    release” and did not advance any “viable basis for ascribing
    plain error to” sentencing judge). We see no basis for a
    different conclusion here.
    Nor does the lack of explanation or findings affect Hunt’s
    substantial rights or call into question the fairness, integrity or
    public reputation of judicial proceedings. The district court
    imposed the stay-away condition moments after the parties
    argued about its merits. The sequence and timing strongly
    suggest the court endorsed the government’s arguments that
    (1) Hunt’s many crimes at Potomac Gardens warranted the
    condition; and (2) the condition did not unduly restrict his
    liberty because “[h]e hasn’t lived” at the complex. Sent. Tr.
    15-16. We discern no prejudice from the court’s failure to say
    out loud that it agreed with the government. See United States
    v. Balon, 
    384 F.3d 38
    , 41 n.1 (2d Cir. 2004) (defendant
    suffered no prejudice from any error in court’s failure
    “expressly [to] articulate on the record why it was imposing
    [certain] conditions of supervised release” because reason was
    “self-evident in the record”); cf. Rita v. United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 359 (2007) (“Where a matter is . . . conceptually simple
    . . . and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge
    United States v. Betts, 
    511 F.3d 872
    , 876 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2007)
    (same); United States v. Ridgeway, 
    319 F.3d 1313
    , 1317 (11th Cir.
    2003) (similar).
    14
    considered the evidence and arguments, we do not believe the
    law requires the judge to write more extensively.”).
    2. The district court did not abuse its discretion
    under section 3583(d).
    The government concedes, and we agree, that Hunt
    preserved his substantive challenge to the stay-away condition
    by objecting to it at the sentencing hearing. Nonetheless, as
    with most sentencing matters, the standard of review is
    deferential. Under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (d), a district court may
    impose “any condition . . . it considers to be
    appropriate”—including “a discretionary condition” typically
    associated with probation under section 3563(b)—so long as
    the condition:
    (1) is reasonably related to the [sentencing]
    factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B),
    (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D);
    (2) involves no greater deprivation of liberty
    than is reasonably necessary for the purposes
    set forth in section 3553(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C),
    and (a)(2)(D); and
    (3) is consistent with any pertinent policy
    statements issued by the Sentencing
    Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a) . . . .
    The district judge has “wide discretion when imposing
    terms and conditions of supervised release” under section
    3583(d) because he is in the best position to “measure[] the
    conditions imposed against the statutorily enumerated
    sentencing goals.” Sullivan, 
    451 F.3d at 895
     (internal
    quotation omitted); see Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51
    (2007) (“The judge sees and hears the evidence, makes
    15
    credibility determinations, has full knowledge of the facts and
    gains insights not conveyed by the record.”) (internal quotation
    omitted). We therefore review the substantive validity of the
    stay-away condition under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
    United States v. Burroughs, 
    613 F.3d 233
    , 240 (D.C. Cir.
    2010); Sullivan, 
    451 F.3d at 895
    .
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in
    concluding, albeit implicitly, that the stay-away condition is
    tailored to Hunt’s criminal history, 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)(1), will
    deter him from criminal conduct, 
    id.
     § 3553(a)(2)(B), and will
    protect the public from further crimes at his hands, id. §
    3553(a)(2)(C). Hunt’s primary contention to the contrary is
    that the condition does not prevent him from dealing drugs
    anywhere outside Potomac Gardens. Appellant’s Br. 20-21
    (“[D]rug dealing is hardly a crime that knows geographical
    boundaries. . . . If a defendant is inclined to continue his
    criminal behavior while on supervised release, he certainly will
    find a suitable locale for his activities.”). We do not agree that
    Hunt’s potential recidivism renders the condition
    unreasonable. As defense counsel noted at sentencing,
    another condition of Hunt’s supervised release prohibits him
    from “commit[ting] another federal, state, or local crime.”
    Sent. Tr. 30. And it is a federal offense to deal or conspire to
    deal illegal drugs. See, e.g., 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a), 846. The
    stay-away condition dovetails with the general prohibition: the
    point is to make drug dealing more difficult for or less tempting
    to Hunt in case he decides to break the law again. The fact
    that he participated in so many deals at Potomac Gardens
    suggests he has established drug contacts there. If the
    stay-away condition does anything to dry up his sources of
    supply or his customer base, it can only help keep him out of
    trouble and thereby serve the purposes of sentencing. See
    United States v. Watson, 
    582 F.3d 974
    , 983 (9th Cir. 2009)
    (“Separating a convicted felon from negative influences in his
    16
    prior life is reasonably related to the permissible goals of
    deterrence and rehabilitation and is a common purpose of
    supervised release.”).
    Nor does the stay-away condition unduly restrict Hunt’s
    liberty. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3583
    (d)(2). The Congress contemplated
    that a district court may require a defendant—as “a
    discretionary condition” of supervised release, 
    id.
     §
    3583(d)—to “refrain from frequenting specified kinds of
    places” and “from residing in a specified place or area,” id. §
    3563(b)(6), (13). We reject Hunt’s contention that the district
    court went too far by “preclud[ing him] from entering a rather
    large section of the District of Columbia.” Appellant’s Reply
    Br. 6.      For starters, “rather large” is a rather large
    overstatement. The condition keeps Hunt away from a single
    housing project, plus about an extra city block in each
    direction. Using a Google map to measure the metes and
    bounds the district court plotted, we take judicial notice that the
    restricted area covers about 50 acres. See United States v.
    Burroughs, 
    810 F.3d 833
    , 835 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (taking
    judicial notice of Google map whose “‘accuracy [could not]
    reasonably be questioned’” for relevant purpose) (quoting FED.
    R. EVID . 201(b)(2)). There are 640 acres in a square mile, see
    Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 
    440 U.S. 668
    , 686 n.23 (1979),
    which means the restricted area covers about 0.078 square
    miles. The District of Columbia encompasses about 68
    square miles. See Jones v. D.C. Armory Bd., 
    438 F.2d 138
    ,
    141 (D.C. Cir. 1970) (per curiam). In other words, the
    restricted area comprises just over one one-thousandth of the
    District. That is a minimal imposition, especially when
    compared to the city- and county-wide restrictions that our
    sister circuits have upheld in analogous cases. See, e.g.,
    Watson, 
    582 F.3d at 977-78, 983-85
     (gang member prohibited
    from entering San Francisco); United States v. Garrasteguy,
    
    559 F.3d 34
    , 40-44 (1st Cir. 2009) (drug dealers prohibited
    17
    from entering Suffolk County, Massachusetts) (plain-error
    review); United States v. Sicher, 
    239 F.3d 289
    , 289-93 (3d Cir.
    2000) (drug dealer prohibited from entering two Pennsylvania
    counties) (plain-error review); United States v. Cothran, 
    855 F.2d 749
    , 750-53 (11th Cir. 1988) (drug dealer prohibited from
    entering Fulton County, Georgia).
    Furthermore, like the conditions in some of the cases cited
    above, the stay-away condition here is not absolute. It forbids
    Hunt to enter Potomac Gardens and the immediate vicinity
    “without the prior approval of the U.S. Probation Office.”
    Sent. Tr. 31. If he has any legitimate cause to enter the
    complex—e.g., to visit family—he can prevail upon his
    probation officer, who we presume will act reasonably under
    the circumstances. See United States v. Love, 
    593 F.3d 1
    , 12
    (D.C. Cir. 2010). Hunt does not even allege that he resides or
    has family at Potomac Gardens. The closest he comes is his
    assertion that he lived there “at one point,” Sent. Tr. 24, and
    “has been a member of the Potomac Gardens community for
    much of his adult life,” Appellant’s Br. 20. He claims no
    specific hardship, however, and it is hard to see how he could.
    His counsel acknowledged at oral argument that he did not live
    there at the time of the offense. Oral Arg. Recording
    8:18-10:00. And to the extent he has friends there who are not
    involved in the drug trade, Sent. Tr. 24, he can meet them
    anywhere he chooses outside the restricted boundaries, which
    are unmistakably defined.
    The district court did not plainly err in failing to explain
    the stay-away condition and did not abuse its discretion in
    imposing it. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s judgment.
    So ordered.