Skip to main content

UNITED STATES v. SCHWARZ (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Daniel SCHWARZ,* Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-201

Decided: January 25, 2021

PRESENT: Amalya L. Kearse, Pierre N. Leval, Susan L. Carney, Circuit Judges. FOR APPELLANT: Edward S. Zas and Barry D. Leiwant, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Federal Defenders of New York, Inc., New York, NY. FOR APPELLEE: David C. James and Allen L. Bode, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Seth D. DuCharme, Acting United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.

SUMMARY ORDER

In a January 9, 2020 judgment, the district court (Spatt, J.) sentenced Defendant-Appellant Daniel Schwarz to 14 months’ imprisonment based on Schwarz's plea of guilty to violating a condition of his supervised release. As part of its sentence for the violation, the district court imposed a two-year term of supervised release to follow Schwarz's 14-month term of incarceration. The district court's written judgment specifies that Schwarz's supervised release is subject to the following condition, among others:

If the probation officer determines that that you pose a risk to another person (including an organization), the probation officer may require you to notify the person about the risk and you must comply with that instruction. The probation officer may contact the person and confirm that you have notified the person about the risk.

App'x 72. Schwarz now challenges this risk notification condition, arguing that this Court's binding precedent requires that the condition be vacated.

Although we generally review conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion, we review de novo challenges that are based on an issue of law. See United States v. McLaurin, 731 F.3d 258, 261 (2d Cir. 2013).

In an opinion issued in the year before the district court imposed the challenged sentence, we vacated a supervised release condition identical to the condition imposed here, explaining that the condition was “vague and afford[ed] too much discretion to the probation officer.” United States v. Boles, 914 F.3d 95, 111 (2d Cir. 2019); see also United States v. Insaidoo, 765 F. App'x 522, 526 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order) (vacating same condition and citing Boles, 914 F.3d at 111-12). The government agrees with Schwarz that the risk notification condition imposed on him is invalid under Boles. It consents to vacatur of the challenged condition and to remand so that the district court may impose a risk notification condition that complies with Boles and related precedent.

Schwarz raises no other challenges to his sentence on appeal. In light of the developments discussed above, we VACATE the risk notification condition of Schwarz's supervised release imposed in 2020 and REMAND this case to the district court to permit it, in its discretion, to impose a suitably revised condition.

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go to Learn About the Law
UNITED STATES v. SCHWARZ (2021)

Docket No: No. 20-201

Decided: January 25, 2021

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

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.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard