United States v. Winn

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-5430
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5430 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:07-cr-00047-DWM-2 v. MEMORANDUM* JAMES LEE WINN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

James Lee Winn appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking

supervised release and challenges a special condition of supervised release

imposed as part of that judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Winn challenges the district court’s addition of a special condition requiring

him to abstain from alcohol and prohibiting him from entering establishments

where alcohol is the primary item of sale. He contends that because he has no

history of substance abuse, the condition is not reasonably related to any of the

statutory sentencing considerations, is a greater deprivation of liberty than

necessary, and is overbroad.

A district court has “broad discretion” to impose special conditions of

supervised release, after “considering the pertinent statutory sentencing factors,

including the nature of the offense and the defendant’s background.” United States

v. Knight, 122 F.4th 845, 848 (9th Cir. 2024). Given Winn’s history and

characteristics, and the need to protect the public, we cannot conclude the district

court abused that broad discretion here. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)-(2).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5430