TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Gerald Leroy Vick, II

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gerald Leroy VICK, II, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Vick, 421 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2005)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
August 16, 2005
Docket
No. 04-3770
Judges
Arnold, Lay, Benton
Citations
421 F.3d 7942005 WL 19507822005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17211

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Gerald Vick pled guilty to possession of child pornography. The district court sentenced Vick to thirty-three months in prison, the statutory maximum under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and three years of supervised release. The district court refused to apply Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), but imposed an alternative discretionary sentence of fifty-one months in the event that the guidelines were held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). One of the conditions imposed upon Vick’s supervised release was that he was to have no contact with children under the age of eighteen, including his daughter, unless he was given prior written consent by his parole officer. Vick argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a condition upon his supervised release which forbids him from seeing his daughter without written consent from his parole officer.

We uphold the district court’s supervised release conditions. The special condition that Vick have no contact with children under the age of eighteen without the written consent of his probation officer was tailored to his extensive history with minors, was reasonably related to the nature of seriousness of his offense, and was needed to deter Vick and protect the public.

See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(b).

Accordingly, the conditions imposed by the district court upon Vick’s supervised release are AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

2006: 22009: 12013: 12019: 120062026peak 2006 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Todd Hobbs710 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2013)
  2. United States v. Stults575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009)
  3. United States v. Mark T. Davis452 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2006)
  4. United States v. Duane Levering441 F.3d 566 (8th Cir. 2006)
  5. United States v. Arthur Jennings, Sr.930 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2019)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Arthur Jennings, Sr.930 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2019)
  2. United States v. Todd Hobbs710 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2013)
  3. United States v. Stults575 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2009)
  4. United States v. Mark T. Davis452 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2006)
  5. United States v. Duane Levering441 F.3d 566 (8th Cir. 2006)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) 11,782
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2004) 20,425

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list