United States v. Butler

── United States v. Butler ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: General 24-3011 United States v. Butler 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 2nd day of June, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee v. No. 24-3011 JAYQUANNE BUTLER, a.k.a. Wiz, Defendant-Appellant. _____________________________________ For Defendant-Appellant: JOHN S. WALLENSTEIN, Garden City, NY. For Appellee: BRETT A. HARVEY (Tiffany H. Lee, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Michael DiGiacomo, United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Charles J. Siragusa, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the November 12, 2024 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Jayquanne Butler appeals from his sentence following his plea of guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and ANPP, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), for which he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 123 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. In particular, Butler argues that (i) the district court procedurally erred in imposing the so-called “search condition” of his supervised release because it failed to make an “individualized assessment of the necessity for the condition” or to “state on the record the reason for imposing it,” Butler Br. at 2 16–17, and (ii) the search condition is substantively unreasonable because it constitutes an “unconstitutional infringement on [his] liberty” under the Fourth Amendment, id. at 15. 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. I. The District Court Did Not Procedurally Err in Imposing the Search Condition. Butler first asserts that the district court procedurally erred in imposing the search condition – which provides that Butler must “submit to a search of [his] person, property, vehicle, place of residence[,] or other property under [his] control based upon reasonable suspicion and permit the confiscation of any evidence or contraband discovered,” App’x at 100 – because it failed to make “individualized” findings as to the condition’s necessity or to properly justify it, Butler Br. at 16. We disagree. We review a district court’s