United States of America v. Otis Ray Mays, Jr.

20-1526Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMay 31, 2022

Full text

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-3384
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Otis Ray Mays, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 21-3385
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Otis Ray Mays, Jr.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: May 13, 2022
Filed: May 31, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________

-- 1 of 2 --

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Otis Mays appeals the district court’s1 reimposition of a special condition of
supervised release limiting his computer use and internet access, following this
court’s remand for resentencing on his wire fraud and child pornography convictions.
Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion
by reimposing the special condition. See United States v. Jennings, 930 F.3d 1024,
1026 (8th Cir. 2019) (reviewing imposition of special conditions of supervised
release for abuse of discretion). The district court adequately explained why it
reimposed the special condition, and, because it did not clearly err in finding that
Mays’s offense involved computer use and internet access, the special condition was
reasonably related to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Turner,
781 F.3d 374, 393 (8th Cir. 2015) (reviewing factual findings for clear error); United
States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490, 493 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussing district court’s
broad discretion to impose special conditions that are reasonably related to the § 3553
factors, involve no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary, and are
consistent with any pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
1The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.