United States v. Crisp, No. 15-2694 (7th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCrisp was convicted 25 times of various crimes, including seven convictions involving a controlled substance. In 2013, Crisp sold crack cocaine twice to a person cooperating with law enforcement. A subsequent search of his apartment turned up another 41 grams of crack. Crisp pled guilty to possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. His original sentence was 240 months in prison followed by eight years of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit held that the supervised release conditions Crisp challenged had not been adequately tailored and justified and remanded for a full resentencing. The district court reduced Crisp’s sentence to 168 months in prison followed by the same eight years of supervised release. Among the conditions of supervised release, the court ordered Crisp to “participate in a program for substance abuse treatment,” to “pay for these services, if financially able, as directed by the U.S. Probation Office.” Crisp objected, unsuccessfully, that 18 U.S.C. 3672 required the court to decide his ability to pay for treatment, without delegating the matter to the probation office. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that a probation officer’s actions are always subject to judicial review.
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.