United States v. Carl Walker

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Michael J. Melloy, C. Arlen Beam and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED) [3957498] [12-1528]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-1528
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Carl Dean Walker
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs
____________
Submitted: September 17, 2012
Filed: September 27, 2012
[Unpublished]
____________
Before MELLOY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Carl Dean Walker appeals the district court's1 reimposition of two special
conditions of supervised release following our remand, see United States v. Walker,
1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

Appellate Case: 12-1528

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/27/2012 Entry ID: 3957498

450 F. App'x 544 (8th Cir. 2011) (remanding for individualized findings with regard
to three special conditions of supervised release). Having carefully reviewed the resentencing transcript, we find that the two challenged special conditions, regarding
sex offender treatment and internet usage, are reasonably related to the sentencing
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), involve no greater deprivation of liberty than
necessary, and are consistent with pertinent policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (setting forth the standard for
issuing special conditions of supervised release); United States v. Morais, 670 F.3d
889, 895 (8th Cir. 2012) (approving analogous provision regarding internet usage);
United States v. Poitra, 648 F.3d 884, 888-89 (8th Cir. 2011) (approving similar
condition regarding sex offender treatment). Further, following our remand, the
district court made adequate individualized findings with regard to the necessity of
each condition. Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________

-2-

Appellate Case: 12-1528

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/27/2012 Entry ID: 3957498