United States v. Norfleet, No. 13-1767 (7th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseOne defendant in consolidated appeals was convicted of child sexual abuse. His conditions of supervised release, imposed for life, included a ban on possession of legal or illegal material that “contains nudity” and the use any mood-altering substance, and a requirement that he undergo a sexual-offender treatment program. The other was convicted of distributing illegal drugs. His conditions, imposed for eight years after his release from prison, included a ban on the use of mood-altering substances and on excessive use of alcohol, and a requirement that he undergo substance-abuse treatment and cognitive behavioral therapy. Apart from a few conditions required by the Sentencing Reform Act, section 3583(d), and U.S.S.G. 5D1.3(a), conditions of supervised release are discretionary, but must comply with policy stated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), considering: the seriousness of the offense, promoting respect for the law, just punishment, deterrence, protecting the public, and providing the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner. The Seventh Circuit vacated, recommending five “best practices” for conditions of supervised release: Require the probation service to communicate recommendations to defense counsel at least two weeks before the sentencing hearing; Make an independent judgment regardless of the opinions of the prosecutor, defense counsel, and defendant; Determine appropriateness with reference to the particular conduct, character, etc., of the defendant, rather than based on generalizations about the crime and criminal history, and where possible, refer to criminological literature; Make sure that each condition is simply worded; Require that before release, the defendant attend a hearing to be reminded of the conditions and consider changed circumstances brought about by the defendant’s prison experiences.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.