CA9: Supervised release condition of financial disclosure permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and didn’t violate 4A

“Second, the financial disclosure condition does not clearly violate the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that release conditions be reasonably necessary and narrowly tailored. See United States v. Sales, 476 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 2007). We have upheld a substantially similar financial disclosure condition as ‘reasonably related to the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’ and ‘involv[ing] no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary’ on the rationale that financial reporting deters future crime by helping probation officers monitor the defendant and detect suspicious use of funds. United States v. Garcia, 522 F.3d 855, 861-62 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court did not plainly err in applying the same rationale here.” United States v. Cook, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6985 (9th Cir. Mar. 25, 2024).

2255 petitioner contends his attorney didn’t properly defend against an illegal search. That was litigated, and the allegation it wasn’t sufficient is conclusory. United States v. Waugh, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51250 (E.D. Okla. Mar. 22, 2024).*

2255 petitioner contends his attorney didn’t properly claim that the search warrant papers were tampered with. That’s waived by his guilty plea. Fitts v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51392 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 22, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Issue preclusion, Probation / Parole search, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.