United States of America v. Lloyd Weyer

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1794
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Lloyd Weyer
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph
____________
Submitted: August 19, 2024
Filed: August 22, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 3 --

Lloyd Weyer appeals a new special condition of supervised release that the
district court1 imposed shortly after his term of supervision commenced. Upon
careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we affirm.
Weyer argues that the district court erred in imposing a special condition
requiring sex-offender counseling because the condition was unrelated to the
underlying offenses of conviction, i.e., conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and
laundering money; the court imposed the condition as part of a generalized approach
to all sex offenders, rather than based on an individualized inquiry; and his 1997 sex
offense was too remote in time to justify imposition of the special condition. Our
review is for plain error, because Weyer’s challenge to the special condition before
the district court was based on different grounds; namely, that he was unlikely to
comply with the condition because he maintained his innocense of a sex offense, and
he was concerned that sex-offender treatment would interfere with his employment.
See United States v. Ridings, 75 F.4th 902, 906 (8th Cir. 2023) (where objection was
on different grounds, plain-error review applies); Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.
129, 135 (2009) (to preserve claim of error, party must inform court of objection and
grounds for that objection).
We find no plain error. See United States v. Winston, 850 F.3d 377, 380 (8th
Cir. 2017) (plain-error requirements); see also United States v. Strubberg, 929 F.3d
969, 979 (8th Cir. 2019) (to prevail on plain error review, defendant must “establish
that the condition is obviously impermissible”; it is not enough that permissibility of
condition is “reasonably debatable”) (citation omitted). First, this court has upheld
sex-offense-related special conditions, though unrelated to a defendant’s offense of
conviction, when the conditions were relevant to a prior sex offense. See, e.g., United
States v. Stelmacher, 891 F.3d 730, 734 (8th Cir. 2018) (upholding imposition of
1The Honorable David Gregory Kays, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

condition limiting contact with minor children unrelated to firearm offense). Further,
the record--including the district court’s statements at the modification hearing--
shows the court understood that the condition is relevant to Weyer’s history and
characteristics, the need to protect the public, and rehabilitation; and the court did not
apply the condition categorically without considering relevant factors in Weyer’s
case; moreover, the condition involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is
reasonably necessary to meet the relevant goals. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a),
3583(d)(1); cf. Winston, 850 F.3d at 381 (condition need not be vacated based on
lack of detailed individual findings if basis for special condition can be discerned
from record). That the prior sex offense was remote in time does not, under the facts
of this case, establish plain error. In any event, even assuming the court erred in
imposing the condition, the facts of this case do not suggest that failing to correct the
error would impugn the integrity of the judicial process. See United States v. Fenner,
600 F.3d 1014, 1027 (8th Cir. 2010) (under plain error review, concluding
sex-offender treatment condition was not obviously impermissible where facts fell
“somewhat in between prior cases and the different standard of review utilized in
them”; even assuming court obviously erred in imposing condition, record did not
indicate that error affected integrity of judicial proceedings).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --