United States of America v. Jeffrey Thomas

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2766
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Jeffrey Thomas
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: September 27, 2023
Filed: October 4, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Thomas appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release
and imposed a sentence which included a new term of supervised release with certain
1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
financial special conditions of supervision. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, this court affirms.
Thomas argues that the district court plainly erred in imposing four special
conditions because they either involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is
reasonably necessary, or are contrary to established Sentencing Commission policy
statements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d); United States v. Wiedower, 634 F.3d 490, 496
(8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review).
This court finds no basis for reversal. Thomas is procedurally barred from
challenging the special conditions concerning financial gains, taxes, and financial
disclosures (Special Conditions 1, 3, and 4 in the revocation judgment) because they
were originally imposed by court order in 2021. Thomas may not challenge the
validity of a previously imposed supervised-release condition for the first time in a
revocation proceeding, at least without any change in relevant circumstances. See
United States v. Simpson, 932 F.3d 1154, 1156 (8th Cir. 2019) (rejecting challenges
to the reimposition of previously imposed supervised-release conditions); United
States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910, 913 (8th Cir. 2009) (proper method of challenging
validity of supervised-release conditions should be challenged through direct appeal
or habeas corpus proceeding). Even assuming Thomas is not similarly barred from
challenging the debt-obligation special condition (Special Condition 6), his
argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See United States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d
1029, 1047 (8th Cir. 2000) (condition requiring defendant to refrain from taking on
additional debt without permission was not unreasonable given large restitution
obligation; court’s authority to tailor condition is consistent with U.S.S.G.
§ 5D1.3(b)); see also United States v. Weiss, 328 F.3d 414, 418 (8th Cir. 2003).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --