{"id":2176,"date":"2020-06-15T11:48:49","date_gmt":"2020-06-15T16:48:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2176"},"modified":"2020-07-03T11:56:59","modified_gmt":"2020-07-03T16:56:59","slug":"united-states-v-donk-4th-cir-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2020\/06\/15\/united-states-v-donk-4th-cir-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"United States v. Donk (4th Cir. 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

United States v. Donk, 961 F.3d 314 (4th Cir. 2020)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Appellant was on supervised release for a sex offense and violated the conditions of his release. The district court sentenced him to an additional period of imprisonment along with additional supervised release and a condition that he not possess any sexually arousing material. Appellant challenged this condition as the court impermissibly delegating its duties to a third party, and that the condition was unconstitutionally vague.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s imposition of the condition on the grounds that it was based on an individualized assessment, and was to be enforced in a way that nullified any vagueness concerns. The Court further held that it was not an impermissible delegation by the district court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n