United States of America v. Denny Hinkeldey

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2232
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Denny Hinkeldey
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Western
____________
Submitted: November 13, 2024
Filed: December 24, 2024
[Published]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Denny Hinkeldey appeals after the district court modified the terms of his
supervised release. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief
challenging the imposition of a polygraph examination requirement.

-- 1 of 3 --

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by imposing the polygraph test requirement, as the record indicated that
Hinkeldey had a history of untruthfulness and conduct which suggested a risk he
would re-offend. See United States v. Sanchez, 44 F.4th 1100, 1103-05 (8th Cir.
2022) (imposition of special condition of supervised release is reviewed for abuse of
discretion; rejecting challenge to a nearly identical polygraph requirement where
offender had engaged in conduct that showed a risk of future offenses).
We note, however, that the court also imposed a special condition of supervised
release requiring Hinkeldey to obtain full-time employment, or to perform up to 20
hours of community service per week in lieu of employment until employed. While
conditions requiring a defendant on supervision to be gainfully employed or to work
community service hours are permitted, see 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(4), (b)(12), the
Guidelines commentary recommends that community service generally should not be
imposed in excess of 400 hours, see U.S.S.G. § 5F1.3, comment. (n.1). Under this
special condition, Hinkeldey could potentially be required to perform 20 hours of
community service per week for the remainder of his 5-year term of supervised
release (approximately 5,000 hours), well over the 400-hour limit suggested by the
Guidelines. Without any justification for the excess hours, we conclude that the
district court plainly erred in imposing the condition without a cap on the number of
hours. See United States v. Carlson, 406 F.3d 529, 531 (8th Cir. 2005) (review of
special condition of supervised release is for plain error when defendant fails to
object); cf. United States v. Parkins, 935 F.3d 63, 68 (2d Cir. 2019) (in light of
general proscription of more than 400 hours of community service and court’s
inadequate, individualized justification for higher amount, imposition of 695 hours
of community service was an abuse of discretion); United States v. Ortiz, 817 F.3d
553, 555-56 (7th Cir. 2016) (vacating condition requiring 20 hours of community
service per week until employed, to maximum of 200 hours, as condition might eat
significantly into job hunting). We therefore modify the condition to require
reconsideration if and when Hinkeldey reaches 400 total hours of community service.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

We trust the United States Probation Office will work with Hinkeldey to monitor the
number of his community service hours and will keep the district court informed as
necessary.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, affirm in part, and
modify the community service requirement in accordance with this opinion.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --