Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Lane

filed*fn*: April 12, 1994.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CHARLES LANE, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. D.C. No. CR-92-020-HRH. H. Russel Holland, District Judge, Presiding

Before: Wright, Tang and Reinhardt, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

Charles Lane shot, killed and illegally sold the body parts of protected Alaskan wildlife. For violating the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a), and also for distributing marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), he received 12 months imprisonment and 4 years of supervised release. He appeals a condition of his supervised release that prohibits him from possessing a firearm, even during subsistence hunts.*fn1 We affirm.

We review for an abuse of discretion the court's discretionary decision to impose an available condition. United States v. Johnson, 998 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1993). The district court had broad discretion in setting the conditions of Lane's supervised release. United States v. Chinske, 978 F.2d 557, 559-60 (9th Cir. 1992); U.S.S.G. § 5B1.4(b)(14) (firearm prohibition "recommended"). The condition must be

reasonably related to (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, and (2) the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, [and] to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. . . .

U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). And the condition "may be unrelated to one or more of [these] factors, so long as [it is] sufficiently related to the others." Johnson, 998 F.2d at 697.

During the undercover investigation, Lane had bragged about illegally shooting protected wildlife, often only to shock tourists and fishery biologists. The district Judge explained the need for the condition when he said, "I very much hope this time around you will get the message that you simply have to conform your conduct to the rules of your community, which includes . . . dealing only in a lawful fashion with wildlife."

The district Judge properly exercised his discretion in imposing the condition. The condition was reasonably related to the offense, Lane's history, and deterrence needs. Chinske, 978 F.2d at 560. Lane used firearms to kill protected wildlife for perverse pleasure and illegal profit. And hunting was a conduit for his criminal conduct. A categorical prohibition against firearm possession could deter him from future violations of the Lacey Act.

The judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.

Disposition

AFFIRME ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.