[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-10266 ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CARMELO ETIENNE,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-20257-DPG-1 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 23-10266 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2024 Page: 2 of 27

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10266

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and JILL PRYOR and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge: This appeal requires us to decide whether the district court committed reversible error when it imposed two conditions of su- pervised release: a financial disclosure condition and a stay-away order. In 2021, Carmelo Etienne called a federal courthouse and threatened violence against a federal magistrate judge, a court- room deputy, and other courthouse employees. He later pleaded nolo contendere to threatening to assault and murder a federal mag- istrate judge and a courtroom deputy. See 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). The district court imposed a time-served sentence and three years of supervised release. As special conditions of that release, the dis- trict court also ordered Etienne to make financial disclosures to the probation office; prohibited him from visiting the federal court- houses in Fort Pierce and West Palm Beach, and the James Law- rence King Courthouse in Miami; and prohibited him from calling the judges’ chambers or court facilities. Etienne failed to object to the financial disclosure condition, but he argued that the stay-away order unduly burdened his right to access the federal courts. The district court overruled his objection. Etienne now challenges both conditions. Because it was not plain error to impose the financial disclosure condition and because the stay-away order is not vague or overbroad and does not unduly burden Etienne’s right to access the federal courts, we affirm. USCA11 Case: 23-10266 Document: 37-1 Date Filed: 05/22/2024 Page: 3 of 27

23-10266 Opinion of the Court 3

I. BACKGROUND In 2018, the Florida Department of Children and Families petitioned a state court to remove three children from Carmelo Etienne’s home in Vero Beach, Florida. Etienne later filed a com- plaint pro se in the district court that alleged that the removal of his children violated his federal civil rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A magis- trate judge recommended that Etienne’s complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. In March 2021, Etienne placed a telephone call to the federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida. He identified himself to the clerk who answered the phone and asked to speak to the court- room deputy who worked for the magistrate judge who had dis- missed his case. After being told that the courtroom deputy was unavailable, Etienne became hostile. He said that the magistrate judge assigned to his case “is going to get ha