23-6857-cr United States v. Darrain UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.

CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 21st day of January, two thousand twenty-five.

Present: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, RICHARD C. WESLEY, EUNICE C. LEE, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. 23-6857-cr GREGORY DARRAIN, AKA SEALED DEFENDANT 10, Defendant-Appellant. *

* The Clerk’s Office is respectfully directed to amend the case caption accordingly. _____________________________________ For Defendant-Appellant: MELISSA A. TUOHEY, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, NDNY, Syracuse, NY.

For Appellee: JOSHUA ROTHENBERG, Assistant United States Attorney, for Carla B.

Freedman, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY.

Appeal from an August 1, 2023 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Appellant Gregory Darrain appeals from an order modifying the conditions of supervised release that were imposed on him following a conviction of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin and fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C). Based on our review of the record, the district court did not abuse its discretion by modifying his conditions of release to include a psychosexual evaluation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) (indicating that the district court has broad discretion in modifying the conditions of supervised release). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the order of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court