from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas
OWEN, Chief Judge, and JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
H. JONES, CIRCUIT JUDGE:
Dean appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court
abused its discretion by imposing a search condition as a
special condition of his supervised release. For the
following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The U.S. Probation
Office created a Presentence Report (PSR) detailing
Dean's criminal history. Based on his past convictions,
the report calculated a criminal history category of VI and
an offense level of 12. Consistent with the recommendations
of the PSR and within the Guidelines' range, the district
court sentenced him to 37 months of imprisonment and a
three-year term of supervised release. In addition to the
mandatory and standard conditions of supervision, the
district court, again adopting the recommendation of the PSR,
imposed the following special search condition:
The defendant shall submit his or her person, property,
house, residence, vehicle, papers, computers (as defined in
18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1)), other electronic communications
or data storage devices or media, or office, to a search
conducted by a United States probation officer. Failure to
submit to a search may be grounds for revocation of release.
The defendant shall warn any other occupants that the
premises may be subject to searches pursuant to this
condition. The probation officer may conduct a search under
this condition only when reasonable suspicion exists that the
defendant has violated a condition of supervision and that
the areas to be searched contain evidence of this violation.
Any search shall be conducted at a reasonable time and in a
parties were given the PSR nearly two months before
sentencing, but neither party filed an objection to the
report. Dean's counsel confirmed that he had reviewed the
report with Dean and had no objection to the report at the
sentencing hearing, after which the district court adopted
the report and imposed the search condition. Dean raised no
objection when the court imposed the condition.
now appeals the special search condition.
18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), a district "court may order,
as a further condition of supervised release, . . . any
condition set forth as a discretionary condition of probation
in [18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)] and any other condition it
considers to be appropriate." Dean challenges the search
condition on the grounds that it is not reasonably related to
the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, lacks a factual basis,
and is not narrowly tailored to ensure the least deprivation
of liberty necessary. He argues his claim should be reviewed
for an abuse of discretion because he had no meaningful
opportunity to object and, alternately, that he can meet the
plain error standard if it applies. The Government counters
that Dean's appeal should be reviewed for plain error,
but under either standard, his claim is unavailing. We agree
with the Government that Dean's appeal should be reviewed
for plain error. Dean's challenge to the special
condition of supervised release does not satisfy that
the defendant objects at sentencing to a special condition of
supervised release, this court reviews for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Woods, 547 F.3d 515,
517 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Absent an objection,
"this court reviews for plain error only."
United States v. Bishop, 603 F.3d 279, 280 (5th Cir.
does not dispute that he failed to raise an objection to the
special condition during sentencing, but he claims he lacked
a "meaningful opportunity to object." When a
defendant has not been provided a meaningful opportunity to
object, this Court reviews sentencing for an abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Rivas-Estrada, 906
F.3d 346, 348-50 (5th Cir. 2018). Rivas-Estrada
reasoned that the purpose behind the "opportunity to
object" is "to give fair notice." Id.
at 349. Dean had ample notice. The record shows that Dean
received a copy of the PSR over a month before sentencing but
filed no objection. At the sentencing hearing, the district
court orally confirmed that Dean's attorney reviewed the
report with him and asked if there were objections. None were
raised. Then the court explicitly stated, "Additionally,
the defendant shall submit to the search condition of the
district." Still there was no objection. Because Dean
had notice of the conditions and "an opportunity to
contest [the] conditions at the sentencing hearing," his
claim is reviewed for plain error. United States v.
Rouland, 726 F.3d 728, 733-34 (5th Cir. 2013).
the plain error standard, Dean "must show 1) an error;
2) that is clear or obvious 3) that affects substantial
rights and 4) that seriously affects the fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of judicial proceedings."
United States v. Huor, 852 F.3d 392, ...