23-6176-cr United States v. Caves
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 26th day of December, two thousand twenty-four.
Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, DENNIS JACOBS, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v. 23-6176-cr
THOMAS CAVES,
Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________
For Appellee: JOSHUA ROTHENBERG, Assistant United States Attorney, on behalf of Carla B. Freedman, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY.
For Defendant-Appellant: PETER J. TOMAO, Attorney, Garden City, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York (David N. Hurd, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment, entered on February 8, 2023, is AFFIRMED.
Defendant-Appellant Thomas Caves appeals from a judgment of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.), following his guilty plea
pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a
felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced
Caves principally to a term of thirty months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years
of supervised release. On appeal, Caves raises challenges to both his conviction and a
special condition of supervised release. With respect to the former, Caves argues that
his conviction for unlawfully possessing a firearm under § 922(g)(1) violates the Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. With respect to the latter, Caves contends that the
district court did not adequately explain its decision to impose Special Condition 4, which
prohibits him from “possess[ing], us[ing], or sell[ing] marijuana or any marijuana
derivative (including any product containing cannabidiol (CBD) or
[tetrahydrocannabinol (]THC)[)] in any form (including but not limited to edibles) or for
any purpose (including medical purposes).” App’x at 127. We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal to which
we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to AFFIRM.
2 I. Constitutionality of Caves’s Conviction
Caves argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), rendered § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional. The
government contends that, pursuant to his plea agreement, Caves waived his right to
challenge on appeal the constitutionality of his statute of conviction. Even accepting
arguendo Caves’s argument that the appellate waiver does not bar his appeal, he cannot
succeed.
Caves raises his constitutional challenge for the first time on appeal, so we review
for plain error. United States v. Donziger, 38 F.4th 290, 302-03 (2d Cir. 2022). “For an
error to be plain, it must, at a minimum, be clear under current law, which means that we
typically will not find such error where the operative legal question is unsettled,
including where there is no binding precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court.”
United States v. Napout, 963 F.3d 163, 183 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks, citation,
and alterations omitted). In United States v. Bogle, 717 F.3d 281, 281-82 (2d Cir. 2013) (per
curiam), we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). Neither Bruen nor any other
binding precedent has held to the contrary.
We recognize that other cases pending before prior panels in this Circuit raise the
question of § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality following Bruen. But because the
constitutional infirmity alleged by Caves is not clear under current law, we see no basis
to disturb his conviction under plain error review. See United States v. Brillon, No. 22-
3 2956-cr, 2024 WL 392949, at *1 (2d Cir. Feb. 2, 2024) (summary order) (rejecting a
constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) under plain-error review); United States v. Ogidi,
No. 23-6325-cr, 2024 WL 2764138, at *1 (2d Cir. May 30, 2024) (summary order) (same);
United States v. Barnes, No. 23-6424-cr, 2024 WL 5103316, at *1 (2d Cir. Dec. 13, 2024)
(summary order) (same).
II. Special Condition 4
Caves argues that the district court erred by failing to justify Special Condition 4,
which states: “You shall not possess, use, or sell marijuana or any marijuana derivative
(including any product containing cannabidiol (CBD) or [tetrahydrocannabinol (]THC)[)]
in any form (including but not limited to edibles) or for any purpose (including medical
purposes).” 1 App’x at 127.
“District courts possess broad discretion in imposing conditions of supervised
release.” United States v. Betts, 886 F.3d 198, 202 (2d Cir. 2018). “A sentencing court
may impose special conditions of supervised release that are reasonably related to certain
statutory factors governing sentencing, involve [ ] no greater deprivation of liberty than
is reasonably necessary to implement the statutory purposes of sentencing, and are
consistent with pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements.” United States v.
The district court failed to justify Special Condition 4 at Caves’s initial sentencing and so we 1
granted Caves’s unopposed motion for a limited remand to allow the district court to supplement the record. We now consider the sufficiency of the explanation the district court provided at the remand hearing.
4 Gill, 523 F.3d 107, 109 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).
When determining whether to impose a special condition, “[a] district court is required
to make an individualized assessment . . . and to state on the record the reason for
imposing it.” Betts, 886 F.3d at 202.
We ordinarily review the imposition of a special condition of supervised release
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Eaglin, 913 F.3d 88, 94 (2d Cir. 2019). But Caves
did not object to the district court’s lack of explanation at sentencing or, on remand, to
the district court’s provided reason for imposing the condition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
23-6176-cr United States v. Caves
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 26th day of December, two thousand twenty-four.
Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, DENNIS JACOBS, STEVEN J. MENASHI, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v. 23-6176-cr
THOMAS CAVES,
Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________
For Appellee: JOSHUA ROTHENBERG, Assistant United States Attorney, on behalf of Carla B. Freedman, United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York, Syracuse, NY.
For Defendant-Appellant: PETER J. TOMAO, Attorney, Garden City, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York (David N. Hurd, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,
AND DECREED that the judgment, entered on February 8, 2023, is AFFIRMED.
Defendant-Appellant Thomas Caves appeals from a judgment of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of New York (Hurd, J.), following his guilty plea
pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a
felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). The district court sentenced
Caves principally to a term of thirty months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three years
of supervised release. On appeal, Caves raises challenges to both his conviction and a
special condition of supervised release. With respect to the former, Caves argues that
his conviction for unlawfully possessing a firearm under § 922(g)(1) violates the Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. With respect to the latter, Caves contends that the
district court did not adequately explain its decision to impose Special Condition 4, which
prohibits him from “possess[ing], us[ing], or sell[ing] marijuana or any marijuana
derivative (including any product containing cannabidiol (CBD) or
[tetrahydrocannabinol (]THC)[)] in any form (including but not limited to edibles) or for
any purpose (including medical purposes).” App’x at 127. We assume the parties’
familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal to which
we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to AFFIRM.
2 I. Constitutionality of Caves’s Conviction
Caves argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), rendered § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional. The
government contends that, pursuant to his plea agreement, Caves waived his right to
challenge on appeal the constitutionality of his statute of conviction. Even accepting
arguendo Caves’s argument that the appellate waiver does not bar his appeal, he cannot
succeed.
Caves raises his constitutional challenge for the first time on appeal, so we review
for plain error. United States v. Donziger, 38 F.4th 290, 302-03 (2d Cir. 2022). “For an
error to be plain, it must, at a minimum, be clear under current law, which means that we
typically will not find such error where the operative legal question is unsettled,
including where there is no binding precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court.”
United States v. Napout, 963 F.3d 163, 183 (2d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks, citation,
and alterations omitted). In United States v. Bogle, 717 F.3d 281, 281-82 (2d Cir. 2013) (per
curiam), we upheld the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). Neither Bruen nor any other
binding precedent has held to the contrary.
We recognize that other cases pending before prior panels in this Circuit raise the
question of § 922(g)(1)’s constitutionality following Bruen. But because the
constitutional infirmity alleged by Caves is not clear under current law, we see no basis
to disturb his conviction under plain error review. See United States v. Brillon, No. 22-
3 2956-cr, 2024 WL 392949, at *1 (2d Cir. Feb. 2, 2024) (summary order) (rejecting a
constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) under plain-error review); United States v. Ogidi,
No. 23-6325-cr, 2024 WL 2764138, at *1 (2d Cir. May 30, 2024) (summary order) (same);
United States v. Barnes, No. 23-6424-cr, 2024 WL 5103316, at *1 (2d Cir. Dec. 13, 2024)
(summary order) (same).
II. Special Condition 4
Caves argues that the district court erred by failing to justify Special Condition 4,
which states: “You shall not possess, use, or sell marijuana or any marijuana derivative
(including any product containing cannabidiol (CBD) or [tetrahydrocannabinol (]THC)[)]
in any form (including but not limited to edibles) or for any purpose (including medical
purposes).” 1 App’x at 127.
“District courts possess broad discretion in imposing conditions of supervised
release.” United States v. Betts, 886 F.3d 198, 202 (2d Cir. 2018). “A sentencing court
may impose special conditions of supervised release that are reasonably related to certain
statutory factors governing sentencing, involve [ ] no greater deprivation of liberty than
is reasonably necessary to implement the statutory purposes of sentencing, and are
consistent with pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements.” United States v.
The district court failed to justify Special Condition 4 at Caves’s initial sentencing and so we 1
granted Caves’s unopposed motion for a limited remand to allow the district court to supplement the record. We now consider the sufficiency of the explanation the district court provided at the remand hearing.
4 Gill, 523 F.3d 107, 109 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).
When determining whether to impose a special condition, “[a] district court is required
to make an individualized assessment . . . and to state on the record the reason for
imposing it.” Betts, 886 F.3d at 202.
We ordinarily review the imposition of a special condition of supervised release
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Eaglin, 913 F.3d 88, 94 (2d Cir. 2019). But Caves
did not object to the district court’s lack of explanation at sentencing or, on remand, to
the district court’s provided reason for imposing the condition. “[W]hen a defendant
fails to object to an alleged sentencing error before the district court, we will ordinarily
consider any later objections forfeited on appeal unless the defendant can meet the plain-
error standard.” United States v. Davis, 82 F.4th 190, 196 (2d Cir. 2023). To prevail under
the plain error standard of review, Caves bears the burden of showing: (1) there was an
error; (2) the error was “clear or obvious, rather than subject to reasonable dispute”; (3)
“the error affected [his] substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means it affected
the outcome of the district court proceedings”; and (4) the error “seriously affects the
fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Marcus,
560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010) (alteration omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). We
discern no “clear or obvious” error in the district court’s imposition of Special Condition
4.
We recently affirmed nearly identical conditions of supervision in United States v.
5 King, No. 22-1024-cr, 2023 WL 6842445 (2d Cir. Oct. 17, 2023) (summary order) and United
States v. Thompson, No. 22-2297-cr, 2024 WL 371128 (2d Cir. Feb. 1, 2024) (summary order)
based on the defendants’ respective histories of substance abuse. In King we held that
because the district court had considered the defendant’s “life-long substance abuse
issues” and drug-related conviction, imposing the marijuana-related condition was not
“clear or obvious” error. 2023 WL 6842445, at *2. And in Thompson, we held that the
reasons for imposing the marijuana-related condition were “self-evident in the record”
because the defendant had used marijuana since he was 12 or 13 years old, participated
in drug treatment programs several times, and engaged in “recurring criminal conduct”
related to his marijuana use. 2024 WL 371128, at *2.
Here, the district court noted that Caves began using marijuana at age 14,
continued to do so until incarcerated, and admitted to using marijuana following his
release to parole supervision. The district court also considered that Caves had
previously been convicted of drug/marijuana possession after he was found to have “14
clear plastic bags containing a green leafy substance which field tested positive for
marijuana.” App’x 144-45. The district court referenced Caves’s self-reported
substance abuse history in the presentence report in which Caves admits to regularly
abusing ecstasy, molly, and non-prescription Percocet and participating in multiple drug
treatment programs. In light of these facts, it was not plain error for the district court to
conclude that Special Condition 4 would achieve sentencing goals and further Caves’s
6 rehabilitation. 2
* * *
We have considered Caves’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are
without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
2 We note that Special Condition 4 also prohibits Caves from using CBD. CBD is “not subject to the Controlled Substances Act if it derives from hemp and is found in many consumer products such as oils and lotions.” King, 2023 WL 6842445, at *2. Nevertheless, on plain error review and this record, we cannot say that the district court’s condition prohibiting the use of CBD amounts to clear or obvious error.