and Submitted October 20, 2016 Honolulu, Hawaii
from the United States District Court No. 1:15-cr-00158-JMS-1
for the District of Hawaii J. Michael Seabright, Chief Judge,
Shanlyn A.S. Park (argued), Assistant Federal Defender; Peter
C. Wolff, Jr., Federal Public Defender; Office of the Public
Defender, Honolulu, Hawaii; for Defendant-Appellant.
A. Thomas (argued), Assistant United States Attorney;
Florence T. Nakakuni, United States Attorney; United States
Attorney's Office, Honolulu, Hawaii; for
Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Jerome Farris, and Paul J.
Watford, Circuit Judges.
the district court, the panel rejected the defendant's
vagueness challenge to a special condition of supervised
release prohibiting him from possessing, distributing,
inhaling, or ingesting synthetic cannabinoids.
panel also held that the district court acted well within its
discretion by imposing the synthetic marijuana special
condition notwithstanding that the district court also
imposed a standard condition prohibiting the defendant from
committing any federal, state, or local offense.
WATFORD, Circuit Judge.
issue in this appeal is a vagueness challenge to a special
condition of supervised release imposed as part of defendant
Kimo Sims' sentence. The district court imposed the
disputed condition to address Sims' long-term use of
marijuana, which played a role in the conduct (distributing
methamphetamine) that led to his conviction in this case.
light of Sims' extensive history of marijuana use, the
district court prohibited him from using marijuana while he
is on supervised release. To prevent Sims from evading the
prohibition by switching to increasingly prevalent synthetic
forms of marijuana, the district court imposed the following
The defendant shall not knowingly possess, distribute,
inhale, or ingest any synthetic cannabinoid, defined as a
substance that mimics the effects of cannabis and applied to
plant material, often referred to as "synthetic
marijuana, " "K2, " or "Spice, "
without the prior approval of the court.
objected to the condition on the ground that it failed to
give him adequate notice of exactly which substances he is
prohibited from ingesting. The district court rejected this
argument after receiving full briefing from the parties and
conducting a thorough hearing on the issue. We ...