United States v. Brian Floss, No. 21-1870 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Defendant was convicted of second-degree sexual assault in Arkansas state court in February 2003, an offense requiring him to register under the Arkansas Sex Offender Registration Act of 1997. One of Defendant's registration requirements was that he notify his probation officer of intended international travel 21 days in advance. However, after registering in 2020, Defendant left the country without informing his probation officer. Upon his return, Defendant was charged with knowingly failing to provide information and then engaging in intended travel in foreign commerce.
Defendant's guidelines were 18 to 24 months, but the government successfully sought an upward variance, resulting in a sentence of 36 months of imprisonment. The court also imposed a term of 15 years of supervised release with up to 36 months of home detention as a special condition of supervised release. Defendant appealed his sentence.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendant's sentence, finding that any error by the district court did not affect Defendant's substantial rights because the court indicated it would have imposed the same term as an upward variance.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Gruender and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not procedurally or substantively err when it thoroughly but separately explained why it was imposing a revocation sentence of 36-months in prison and up to 36 months of home detention as a special condition of supervised release; even if the district court committed plain error in stating a 15-year term of supervision was authorized by the guidelines, defendant cannot show that the error affected his substantial rights because the district court clearly showed that it would have imposed the same term as an upward variance based on its evaluation of the circumstances of the case; the court sufficiently explained why it believed the 15-year term was appropriate; imposing home detention as a special condition of supervised release was substantively reasonable; the matter is remanded to permit the district court to conform the written judgment concerning home detention with its oral pronouncement of the provision; defendant's other challenges to the special conditions are rejected. Grasz, dissenting in part.
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.