The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-15525•USA v. Robert Jason Morgan
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 29, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15525
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 9:96-cr-08051-KLR-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT JASON MORGAN,
a.k.a. Jason Leslie Morris,
a.k.a. Patrick Tuohy,
a.k.a. Jackie Morris,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(May 29, 2012)
Before BARKETT, PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
-- 1 of 3 --
Robert Morgan appeals a special condition of his one-year term of
supervised release following his year-and-a-day sentence imposed for violating the
terms of his prior supervised release. On appeal, Morgan argues the condition
prohibiting him from serving his supervised release in Florida is not reasonably
related to the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and involves a deprivation of
liberty greater than reasonably necessary for the purposes of § 3553(a).
Although Morgan now argues the district court erred in prohibiting him
from serving his supervised release term in Florida, Morgan invited this alleged
error. At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated that Morgan was to be
released in California, where he had been serving his previous term of supervised
release. Defense counsel did not object and instead requested that Morgan “live
in Las Vegas instead of California.” Because Morgan invited the district court to
impose a term of supervised release in Nevada, we are precluded from reviewing
his claim of alleged error on appeal. See United States v. Brannan, 562 F.3d 1300,
1306 (11th Cir. 2009) (“Where a party invites error, [we are] precluded from
reviewing that error on appeal.”).1
Alternatively, the district court did not plainly err in imposing this special condition. It1
is within a court’s discretion to impose such a limitation as a condition of supervised release, see
18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(13), and the condition takes account of Morgan’s criminal history and the
need to protect the public from harm by preventing Morgan’s release to Florida, where he
previously threatened the life of a judge and a prosecutor.
2
-- 2 of 3 --
AFFIRMED.
3
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.