United States v. Otis Mays, Jr.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

United States v. Otis Mays, Jr.

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-3384 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Otis Ray Mays, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________

No. 21-3385 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Otis Ray Mays, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: May 13, 2022 Filed: May 31, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Otis Mays appeals the district court’s1 reimposition of a special condition of supervised release limiting his computer use and internet access, following this court’s remand for resentencing on his wire fraud and child pornography convictions. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by reimposing the special condition. See United States v. Jennings, 930 F.3d 1024, 1026 (8th Cir. 2019) (reviewing imposition of special conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion). The district court adequately explained why it reimposed the special condition, and, because it did not clearly err in finding that Mays’s offense involved computer use and internet access, the special condition was reasonably related to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Turner, 781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing factual findings for clear error); United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490, 493 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing district court’s broad discretion to impose special conditions that are reasonably related to the § 3553 factors, involve no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary, and are consistent with any pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Reference

Status
Unpublished