Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SHAWN PENA

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-08-05 The seventh-circuit affirmed Shawn Pena’s 24-month revocation sentence but vacated Special Condition 13 of his supervised release and remanded the case for the district court to recast that condition in more concrete terms. The court held that the district court did not err in considering police reports related to dismissed theft violations to assess Pena’s risk to the community, as the information possessed sufficient indicia of reliability and Pena waived any due process objections by electing to proceed with the hearing without requesting a delay. Furthermore, the court found no breach of the plea agreement by the government for acknowledging the court’s sentencing discretion or failing to oppose probation’s recommendation, noting that probation officers act as neutral informants rather than adversaries. The court also rejected Pena’s argument that the sentence was motivated by retribution, concluding the district court properly relied on permissible factors of public safety and deterrence under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(c) and 3553(a)(2)(C). Regarding the vacated condition, the court applied the standard that conditions requiring a probation officer to determine if a defendant is a “risk” to “another person” are unconstitutionally vague under Seventh Circuit precedent, such as *United States v. Greco* and *United States v. Bickart*, because they fail to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct. Consequently, the practical consequence is that Pena must serve his affirmed prison term and one year of supervised release, but the district court must modify the specific condition regarding notification of risks to third parties to ensure it is not unconstitutionally vague. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.