Can a probation officer order that a defendant must notify a third party that he poses a risk to that third party after serving his sentence?

Washington pleaded guilty on September 25, 2017 and was sentenced on July 25, 2018. As part of his sentence, the district court imposed several conditions of supervised release, among which was a condition that gave his probation officer the discretion to require Washington to notify third parties that he posed a risk to them. On January 25, 2019, we struck down an identical notification-of-risk provision. See United States v. Boles, 914 F.3d 95, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2019). In response, the Western District of New York ("W.D.N.Y.") issued a standing order that replaced all notification-of-risk conditions for defendants in the district with the following language:

In re: United States v. Boles, Amended Standing Order, (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2019), available at https://www.nywd.uscourts.gov/sites/nywd/files/PTPR-2019-AmendedBolesStandOrd.pdf.¹

Page 4

Because the applicable notification-of-risk condition of supervised release contemplates only that Washington "may" be required to notify a third party about the risk he poses after he serves his 144-month sentence and he has not yet been required to do so, his challenge is unripe. See United States v. Traficante, No. 18-1962, 2020 WL 4032220, at *5 (2d Cir. July 17, 2020) ("And while it could be argued that the standing order contemplates vesting the probation officer with a degree of discretion that is inconsistent with our holding in Boles, such a challenge would . . . be unripe, since the ostensibly improper delegation may never actually occur."). Accordingly, we decline to reach Washington's delegation challenge.