Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher ALFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
SUMMARY ORDER
Defendant Christopher Alford (“Alford”) appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, J.) sentencing him for two counts for being a felon in possession of a firearm or ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and further imposing conditions of supervised release.
On appeal, Alford challenges two aspects of the district court's judgment. First, he challenges the district court's decision to convict him for two separate violations of § 922(g) rather than a single violation. He argues that this Court has held that a defendant like Alford who simultaneously possesses firearms and ammunition is generally guilty of only one violation of the statute, not two, and that none of the exceptions to this general rule apply to his case. Second, he challenges Standard Condition 12 of the conditions of supervised release, which allows a probation officer to order the defendant to notify third persons of risks he may pose to them. He argues that our decision in United States v. Boles, 914 F.3d 95, 111 (2d Cir. 2019), makes such a condition invalid for being too vague and affording too much discretion to the probation officer.
On the facts of this case, the government agrees with Alford that remand is warranted on both points. In particular, the government agrees that we should remand so that the district court may vacate one of the counts of conviction and the challenged condition of release. After reviewing the record, we concur.
On remand, the district court should vacate one of the counts of conviction as well as the challenged condition of release. With respect to the challenged condition, the government notes that the district court may decide to impose a similar condition that complies with our decision in Boles. We take no position on what the proper scope of such a condition might be, nor on the appropriateness of such a condition in this case.
Accordingly, we REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with this order.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 20-200
Decided: November 17, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)