United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Michael Aaron Cheeks, also known as Michael A. Cheeks Defendant-Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
December 16, 2021
Unpublished
Submitted: September 21, 2021
Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Michael Aaron Cheeks pled guilty to distribution of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). The district court[1] sentenced him to a 30-month term of imprisonment to be followed by 5 years of supervised release. Cheeks
challenges an unobjected-to special condition of supervised release requiring his participation in an approved treatment program for domestic violence. We affirm.
At sentencing, and without objection, the district court imposed a special condition of supervision that Cheeks participate in an approved treatment program for domestic violence. Over seven months later, Cheeks filed a pro se motion to strike the domestic violence condition. The district court declined to review the imposed special condition, and Cheeks appealed.
Cheeks contends the district court abused its discretion when it declined to revisit the domestic violence treatment special condition on three grounds. First, he asserts that he has no domestic violence convictions, and the condition is factually unsupported. Second, he claims that he has previously completed domestic violence treatment while incarcerated with no new incidents since completion, and the condition is unnecessary. Finally, he claims that because his current conviction does not involve domestic violence, the condition is unrelated to the sentencing goals for a drug charge.
We review a district court's denial of a motion to modify a supervised release condition for abuse of discretion. United States v. Smith, 961 F.3d 1000, 1003 (8th Cir. 2020). A district court enjoys "broad discretion in the imposition or modification of conditions" of supervised release. United States v. Trimble, 969 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (citation omitted). When special conditions are imposed, they must reasonably relate "to the sentencing factors, involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary, and are consistent with the Sentencing Commission's pertinent policy statements." Id. (quoting United States v. Romig, 933 F.3d 1004, 1007 (8th Cir. 2019)). In imposing or amending conditions of supervision, the district court is directed by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) to weigh the sentencing factors found at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, the district court considers "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, the need to protect the public from future crimes of
the defendant, and the need to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner." United States v. Harris, 794 F.3d 885, 888-89 (8th Cir. 2015). Each of the sentencing factors is considered and weighed independently, and the condition is not required to relate to...
