2006 WL 2141457
Summary of Opinion
Defendant Cardine was convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud and swindle livestock in interstate commerce. He appeals from an order modifying his judgment which added a special condition of supervised release and banning him from all equestrian-related employment. This court affirms stating that it was Cardine’s employment in the equestrian industry that allowed him to accomplish his crime and thus bore a direct relationship to his conviction.
Text of Opinion
Joshua Cardine appeals the district court's order modifying his criminal judgment and adding a special condition of supervised release to prohibit him from employment in the equestrian industry. Cardine contends the district court erred by banning him from all equestrian-related employment when his conviction stemmed only from the fraudulent sale of horses. We affirm.
District courts have broad latitude in
imposing special conditions of supervised release, and we review a district
court's imposition of a special condition for abuse of discretion.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the special condition of supervised release prohibiting Cardine from employment in the equestrian industry. Cardine pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit fraud and swindle of livestock in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2000). Cardine's employment in the equestrian industry allowed him to accomplish his crime and thus bore a reasonably direct relationship to the offense of conviction. The district court considered but rejected Cardine's assertion that a complete ban from the industry was not reasonably necessary to protect the public from conduct similar to that for which he was convicted. We have reviewed the record and conclude the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in this ruling.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order modifying Cardine's criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.