Whether the imposition of Standard Condition (12), U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c)(12), violates a defendant's right to Due Process because the condition unconstitutionally delegates judicial authority to a probation officer and is unconstitutionally vague?

QUESTION PRESENTED When sentencing a defendant to a term of supervised release, a district court will routinely impose standard conditions of supervised release listed in the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Mr. Joshua Hayes submits that one of those standard conditions, Standard Condition (12), U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(@)(12), which allows a probation officer to determine if a defendant is a ‘risk’ to a third party and to then mandate that the person or organization be notified, is unconstitutional. Standard Condition (12) states as follows: If the probation officer determines that the defendant poses a risk to another person (including an organization), the probation officer may require the defendant to notify the person about the risk and the defendant shall comply with that instruction. The probation officer may contact the person and confirm that the defendant has notified the person about the risk. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c)(12). Currently several circuit courts of appeal are in conflict as to whether this condition is unconstitutional. The question presented is: Whether the imposition of Standard Condition (12), U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c)(12), violates a defendant’s right to Due Process because the condition unconstitutionally delegates judicial authority to a probation officer and is unconstitutionally vague? i