United States v. Anthony Key, No. 15-3413 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed the district court's revocation of his term of supervised release. Special Condition Number 6 made it a condition that defendant must not possess obscene material as deemed inappropriate by the probation officer and/or treatment staff. The court concluded that defendant's claim that Special Condition Number 6 is unconstitutionally vague is foreclosed by precedent, (see Miller v. California); the condition is not overbroad because a ban on possessing obscene materials is narrower than a ban on possessing pornography or sexually explicit material; the district court did not commit plain error by phrasing the condition so that enforcement is triggered by a probation officer or member of the treatment staff; and because defendant has been convicted of a child pornography offense, a condition of supervised release properly may limit his constitutional rights; the district court applied the correct standard when it sanctioned him for possessing “inappropriate” materials without determining that they were obscene; and the district court adequately explained its decision to vary upward from the advisory guidelines range and impose the 24 month sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Arnold and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - supervised release. Under plain error review, Key's challenge as unconstitutionally vague his special condition prohibiting possession of obscene materials is foreclosed by precedent and the prohibition is not overbroad. The district court did not commit plain error by phrasing the condition so that enforcement is triggered by a probation officer or member of the treatment staff. As-applied challenge to condition failed. District court applied the correct standard. District court adequately explained the decision to vary upward from the advisory guidelines range and sentence Key to 24 months imprisonment.
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.