from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi
HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
E. SMITH, Circuit Judge
Hathorn violated his supervised release ("SR") by
testing positive for drug use on multiple occasions. The
district court revoked SR and imposed a special condition of
SR that Hathorn challenges on appeal. We affirm.
2010, Hathorn pleaded guilty of possession with intent to
distribute five or more grams of cocaine base. The district
court sentenced him to 106 months' imprisonment and 6
years' SR. As a result of changes to the Sentencing
Guidelines that lowered the range for Hathorn's crime of
conviction, his sentence was reduced to 74 months.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012).
2016, Hathorn was released from prison and began his SR. The
next month, he tested presumptively positive for marihuana.
The district court modified his supervision to require that
he "submit [his] person, residence, vehicle, and office
to a search, conducted by the U.S. Probation Office at a
reasonable time, and in a reasonable manner, based upon
reasonable suspicion of contraband or evidence of a violation
of a condition of release." The court explained that the
"condition would act both as a deterrent for possible
future non-compliance and a valuable tool for the probation
office if warranted." Hathorn agreed to the
October 2016, Hathorn again tested presumptively positive for
drug use. Though he denied using cocaine, the lab results
confirmed its presence. Hathorn agreed to a modification of
SR that included participation in an in-patient drug
in November 2017, Hathorn tested positive for cocaine and
methamphetamine, initially denying use but, when confronted
with lab confirmation, admitting it. In March 2018, he tested
positive for cocaine and again denied use, but lab results
confirmed otherwise. Based on these violations of the
conditions of SR, the probation office petitioned the court
for a warrant to arrest Hathorn.
revocation hearing, Hathorn admitted the violations. When
Hathorn's counsel asked the court to consider drug
treatment in lieu of significant jail time, the probation
officer replied that Hathorn "never once brought up any
need for treatment, never once admitted to any of his
positive drug tests until we got lab confirmation[, ] [and]
[w]as not honest with [the probation office]."
Therefore, "at th[at] point," the probation officer
"fe[lt] like we need to control [Hathorn's]
hearing from Hathorn, his counsel, and the probation officer,
the district court determined that Hathorn had violated the
conditions of SR. It revoked SR and sentenced him to six
months' imprisonment to be followed by 42 months' SR
and imposed a special condition of SR requiring that he
"shall submit his person, residence, computers, cellular
telephones, all other electronics and vehicles to searches by
the United States Probation Officers, at any time, to be
conducted in a reasonable manner, under reasonable suspicion
of contraband or illegal activity."
"object[ed] to the search condition with all the
electronics" because it is "typically a special
condition for sex offenders, and [he] was originally
convicted of possession with intent to distribute." The
court overruled the objection, explaining that
[t]he reason that th[e] special condition is being imposed is
because [Hathorn] has a conviction for drug dealing. He has
shown that he has a drug addiction-apparently a drug
addiction, or certainly a drug abuse problem, and one of the
best ways to discover using illegal drugs is to look at
somebody's cell phone or communication device.
appeal, Hathorn challenges only the portion of the special
condition of SR allowing probation officers to search his
computers, cellular telephones, and all other electronics. He
asserts that the district court abused its discretion in
imposing the special condition because it is not (1)
reasonably related to any of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors, (2) narrowly tailored such that it does not involve
a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably ...