How do we review conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion?

We review a district court's imposition of conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Boles, 914 F.3d 95, 111 (2d Cir. 2019). "When a challenge to a condition of supervised release presents an issue of law, however, we review the imposition of that condition de novo, bearing in mind that any error of law necessarily constitutes an abuse of discretion." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Where an objection was not raised in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Hendricks, 921 F.3d 320, 326 (2d Cir. 2019). We may use our discretion to correct the unpreserved error "only where the appellant demonstrates that (1) there is an error; (2) the error is clear or obvious . . . ; (3) the error affected the appellant's substantial rights . . . ; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings." United States v. Gasperini, 894 F.3d 482, 487 (2d Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). At sentencing, Dill challenged the condition relating to supervision of his treatment, and so we review this challenge for abuse of discretion. See Boles, 914 F.3d at 111. Because Dill failed to challenge the other conditions in the district court, however, we review them for plain error. See Hendricks, 921 F.3d at 326. We consider each challenge in turn.

Page 4

I. Supervision of Dill's Mental Health and Sex Offender Treatment