United States v. Fairley ( 2022 )

Case: 21-10752 Document: 00516263322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
No. 21-10752 Fifth Circuit
Summary Calendar FILED
April 1, 2022
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Christopher Michael Fairley,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CR-357-1
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Christopher Michael Fairley pleaded guilty to using or possessing a
fraudulent immigration document, namely a passport card. The district
court sentenced him to 23 months of imprisonment and two years of
supervised release. Fairley timely appealed.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10752 Document: 00516263322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2022
No. 21-10752
In his sole appellate issue, Fairley challenges the supervised release
condition that he provide to his probation officer “any requested financial
information.” He argues that the condition should not have been imposed
because his judgment of conviction did not order any financial obligation.
Review is for plain error because, although Fairley challenged the condition
in the district court, he did so on other grounds. See United States v. Medina-
Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 643 (5th Cir. 2003).
In sentencing Fairley, the district court tied the financial-disclosure
condition to relevant sentencing factors and carefully considered the need to
impose no greater deprivation of liberty than was necessary to account for
them. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)-(2); 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C).
Moreover, the condition is not inconsistent with the language used in the
policy statement found at U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(3). See § 3583(d)(3);
§ 5D1.3(d)(3), p.s.
On this record, we are not persuaded that the district court clearly or
obviously abused its discretion in imposing the financial-disclosure
condition. See § 3583(d); § 5D1.3(d)(3), p.s.; United States v. Bree, 927 F.3d
856, 859-60 (5th Cir. 2019). Fairley’s reliance on United States v. Stafford,
983 F.2d 25 (5th Cir. 1993), is misplaced and fails to demonstrate plain error.
See Bree, 927 F.3d at 859.
AFFIRMED.
2