SUMMARY ORDER
In a January 9, 2020 judgment, the district court (Spatt, J.) sentenced Defendant-Appellant Daniel Schwarz to 14 months’ imprisonment based on Schwarzs plea of guilty to violating a condition of his supervised release. As part of its sentence for the violation, the district court imposed a two-year term of supervised release to follow Schwarzs 14-month term of incarceration. The district courts written judgment specifies that Schwarzs supervised release is subject to the following condition, among others:
If the probation officer determines that that you pose a risk to another person (including an organization), the probation officer may require you to notify the person about the risk and you must comply with that instruction. The probation officer may contact the person and confirm that you have notified the person about the risk.
Appx 72. Schwarz now challenges this risk notification condition, arguing that this Courts binding precedent requires that the condition be vacated.
Although we generally review conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion, we review de novo challenges that are based on an issue of law. See United States v. McLaurin, 731 F.3d 258, 261 (2d Cir. 2013).
In an opinion issued in the year before the district court imposed the challenged sentence, we vacated a supervised release condition identical to the condition imposed here, explaining that the condition was “vague and afford[ed] too much discretion to the probation officer.” United States v. Boles, 914 F.3d 95, 111 (2d Cir. 2019); see also United States v. Insaidoo, 765 F. Appx 522, 526 (2d Cir. 2019) (summary order) (vacating same condition and citing Boles, 914 F.3d at 111-12). The government agrees with Schwarz that the risk notification condition imposed on him is invalid under Boles. It consents to vacatur of the challenged condition and to remand so that the district court may impose a risk notification condition that complies with Boles and related precedent.
Schwarz raises no other challenges to his sentence on appeal. In light of the developments discussed above, we VACATE the risk notification condition of Schwarzs supervised release imposed in 2020 and REMAND this case to the district court to permit it, in its discretion, to impose a suitably revised condition.