USA v. Jordan Jim, No. 15-60778 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-60778 Document: 00513562287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-60778 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED June 23, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JORDAN JIM, Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:11-CR-4-1 Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Jordan Jim appeals a special condition of supervised release that was imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. The district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting Jim from using social media applications and websites. See United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2013). The record indicates that the district court imposed this condition because Jim used Facebook to convey a threatening Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-60778 Document: 00513562287 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/23/2016 No. 15-60778 message and ultimately committed an assault and battery that was precipitated by his anger related to Facebook comments. See United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 275 (5th Cir. 2015). The prohibition on social media is therefore reasonably related to the nature and circumstances of one of his supervised release violations and his history and characteristics, the need for deterrence of criminal conduct, and the need to protect the public from further crimes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1). The condition does not impose a “greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to deter Jim and protect the public. See § 3583(d)(2). The condition is narrowed in both scope and time: Jim is only prohibited from using social media, as distinguished from the entire internet, and he is prohibited from doing so for five years only. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. 2

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.