United States v. McCraney ( 2021 )

Case: 21-60446 Document: 00516102954 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-60446 November 22, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Michael McCraney,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:10-CR-30-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michael McCraney, federal prisoner # 15284-043, pleaded guilty to
possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 120 months in prison,
to be followed by a 25-year term of supervised release. The district court
revoked McCraney’s supervised release because he violated the terms of his
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60446 Document: 00516102954 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
No. 21-60446
supervision by not being truthful with his probation officer and by possessing
an internet capable smart phone. The district court sentenced him to eight
months in prison, to be followed by a 25-year term of supervised release. The
district court imposed as special conditions of release that McCraney was
prohibited from possessing or using any internet capable device without the
permission of his probation officer, that he abstain from the use of alcohol,
and that he participate in a program of testing and treatment for alcohol and
drug abuse as directed by the probation officer.
McCraney argues that the district court abused its discretion in
imposing the internet-device condition because it is unreasonably restrictive.
See United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v.
Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269, 273 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2015). The district court found
that the probation officer had allowed McCraney to use devices to access the
internet at the library but that on two occasions he lied to the probation officer
about possessing an internet capable device. Contrary to McCraney’s
argument, the condition does not require him to seek the approval of his
probation officer for every use of the internet. Given the specific facts of this
case, the district court narrowly tailored the scope and duration of the special
condition and made specific findings to support the decision. See United
States v. Duke, 788 F.3d 392, 399 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Salazar,
743 F.3d 445, 451 (5th Cir. 2014).
McCraney also argues that the two special conditions of release
addressing alcohol use were not reasonably related to the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(1) sentencing factors. McCraney concedes that he failed to object
to the imposition of these special conditions and that review is for plain error.
See Salazar, 743 F.3d at 448. McCraney acknowledges that the district court
based these two special conditions on his criminal history, which contained
alcohol related offenses, and documented alcohol abuse contained in the
original presentence report. Although he asserts that the information is stale,
2
Case: 21-60446 Document: 00516102954 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/22/2021
No. 21-60446
McCraney does not dispute the accuracy of the PSR. Given the undisputed
facts, the district court did not clearly err in finding that McCraney had
abused alcohol or in imposing the alcohol related special conditions of
release. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); Caravayo, 809
F.3d at 273.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3