P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20748 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. TI M OTHY ALAN FORT ENBERRY , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 4 : 0 7
- CR- 7 0
- ALL B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * T i m ot h y A l an F ort en berry w as convi ct ed b ya j u ry of t h ree c ou n t s of r e c e ivi ng c hi l d p o r no gr ap hy ando ne c o u n tof po s s e s s i o n o f

c hi l d p o r no gr ap hy i nvo lvi ng t he s e xua le xp l o i t at i o n o f m i no r s . The di s t r i c tc o ur ts e nt en ced For t e nbe r r y t o t hr e e c o nc ur r e ntt e r m s o f 1 68 m o nt hs o f

i m pr i s o nm e nta nd o ne concu rrent t erm of

1 2 0 m o n th s of

i m pri sonm en t . T h e di st ri ctcourtal so i m poseda lifet i m e term of sup ervi sed rel ease, w h i ch i n cl u deda speci alcondit i on United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 26, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20748

2 barri n g F ort en berry fro m u si n g t h e i n t ernet w i t h ou tpri or w rit t en perm i ssi on fr o m h is p r o b a tio n o ffic e r . For t e nbe r r y e l e c t e d t o r e pr e s e nthi m s e l f i n t he di s t r i c tcou r t , a nd the d i stri ct cou rt he l da h ea ri n g to d eterm i n e i f F orten b erry ’ s w a ive r o f h i s ri gh t t o c ounse lw as know i ng and i nt ell i gent . For t enber r y now ar gues o n appealt hat t h e hea ri n g cond u ct ed byt h e di st ri ctcourtw as i n ad equ ate because t h e di st ri ct c our t per m i t t ed t he G ove r nm ent t o as k Fort enber r y so m e of t he ques t i ons t hat w e ntt o t he de t e r m i nat i o n thathi s w aive rw as v ali d. Pu r suantt o the Si xt h and F our t ee nt h A m endm en ts, a s t at e c r i m i nal d e fe n d a n t h a s t h e r ig h t t o th e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. F a re ttav. Ca lif

o rn ia , 422 U .S . 8 0 6 , 8 0 7 (19 7 5 ). H ow ever, “t h e C on st i t u t i on does not f orce a l aw yer up on ade fen d a n t. ” I

d. a t8 14
- 15 (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks o m i t t e d) . A de fe nda nt m a in ta in s th e rig h t t o re p r e s e n t h im s e lf in acr im in a l tr ia l. I d. a t 8 1 5 , 8 2 1 . I n Un itedS ta tes v. D a v is , 269 F . 3d514 , 516
- 20 (5t h C i r. 200 1) , t h e case r e lie do n b yF o r te n b e r r yfo rt h e p r o p o s itio n th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e din al l ow i n g t h e p rosec u t or to cond u ctsom e of t h e qu est i on s i n t h e F a re ttahear i ng, th e d istr ict co u rt c o n d u cte da n e x ce e d in g ly b rie f F a re ttah e a r in ginw h ic h it pri m ari l y reli ed on w arn i n gs g iven b y coun sel , w h om t h e defen da n t“ n o l on ger t r ust ed. ” W e c onc l uded t hatt he hear i ng di d nots at i sf y F a re tta . I

d. at520. U nl i ke i n D a v is , t he di s t r i c tc o ur tque s t i o ne d For t e nbe r r y atl e ngth a bo ut h i s un derst an di n g of t h e di st ri ct court’ s rol e i n t h e federalgovernm en t , t h e j u ry s e l e c t i o n a nd t r i alpr o c e s s , t he r i s k t hathe w as t o o i nt i m at e ly i nvo lve d wi t h t he c a s e to “s e e [] th in g s fr o m ad is ta n c e ,” th e ris kth a t t h e ju r ym ig h t m a k e ce r ta in c onc l usi ons abo uthi m based on h i s dec i si on torepr es enthi m se l f, and t he near im p o s s ib ility o f p r e s e n tin g h im s e lf a s aw itn e s s . T h e d i st ri ctcou rtadm on i shed F orten b errytha t his de ci sionto pro cee dpr o se w a s a “fooli sh ch oice. ” Th e di st r i c tc our tt hen al l ow ed the G ove r nm ent t o ques t i on For t enber r y. The G o ve r nm e nta s ke d Fo r t e nbe r r y w he t he rhe ha d r e pr e s e nt e d hi m s e l f i n a ny o t he rt ri al ; u nde r s t o o d the c har ge s a ga i ns thi m ; und e r s t o o d the Se nt e nc i ngN o. 08- 20748

3 G ui deli nes and t he penalt i es t hat c oul d be i m pos ed i f he w as f

ound gui l t y; w as fam i l i arw i t h t he F ede r alR ul es of E vi denc e and t he F ede r alR ul es of C r i m i nal P r o c e d u r e ; a n du n d e r s t o o dth e d e ta ils o f ap le ab a r g a in h e h a dp r e v io u s ly r ej e c t e d. Fur t he r , unli ke t he de fe nda nti n D a v isw ho pr e s um ab l y t r us t e d the ne ut r ali t y o f

t he b e nc h, t he r e c o r d r e f l ect s that t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd a nyo ne l i censed to pract i ce th e re in w e re al lm i st rusted by F ort en berry. Th e di st ri ct c o ur t ’ s pe r m i t t i ng t he G o ve r nm e nt t o que s t i o n For t e nbe r r y dur i ng hi s l e ngthy Fa r e ttah e a r i ngd i dn o tr e nd e rFo r t e nb e r r y ’ s waiv e ro f c o un s e ll e s s t han k n o w in ga n din te llig e n t. F ort en berry al so c h al l en ges t h e adeq u acy of t h e w a rn in g s he received regardi n g t h e w aiver of coun sela th i s sen t en ci n g h eari n g an d the ad equ acy of h is a p p r e h e n s io n o f “p o s s ib le d e fe n s e s t o t h e ch a r g e s a n dcir c u m s ta n c e s in m itig a tio n th e r e o f.” V on Mol t ke v. G i l l i es , 332 U . S . 708 , 724 ( 194 8) . Th e rec ord ref l ect s th a tF ort en berry w as adeq u ately i n f orm ed ab ou tt h e rang e of i m pr i s o nm e nthe fac e d, abou tt he pl e a o f fe rhe r ej e c t e d, a nd abo utt he S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es u n d e r w h i ch h e w as sentenced. Fortenberry m ad e a do ubl e j e o pa r dya r gum e nts i m i l art o t he o ne i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. D aven port , 519 F . 3d940 , 943
- 48 (9t h C i r. 200 8), in w h i ch the N i n t h C i rcui thel d that entr y of ju d g m e n t b a s e do n ag u iltyp le at o o n e c o u n t o f r e c e iv in gch ildp o r n o g r a p h y , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 A (a )(2 ), a n do n e co u n t o f p o s s e s s in gch ild porn ograp h y, i nvi ol ati on of § 2252 A ( a) ( 5) ( B ) , vi ol ated dou bl e j eopa rdy becau se po s s e s s i o n o f

fe ns e w as a l e s s e ri nc l ude d of fe ns e of re c e i ptof

fe ns e . H o w e ve r , t he G overnm en targu ed that t h e possess i on an d r ecei pt coun t s aga i n stF ort en berry o c c ur r e d o n dif

fe r e ntda ys a nd the r e f o r e di d no tv i o l at e do ubl e j e o pa r dy pri n ci pl es. T h e record d oe s n ot refl ect th a t F orten b erry h a d a n in a d e q u a te u n d ersta n d i n g o f l ess er i n cl u d edo ff en ses a n dth e p oss ib l e d efen ses av a i l a b l e to h i m . B a sed “onthe ci rcu m stan ces o f th [i s] i n d ivid u a lcas e, th e d i stri ct cou rt” pr o pe r l y “ e xe r c i s e [ d] it s di s c r e t i o n i n d e t e r m i ni ng t he pr e c i s e na t ur e o f t heN o. 08- 20748

4 w a rn i n g” g ive n to F orten b erryto de term i n e th a t his w a iv e rof th e righ t t o c o u n s e l w a s k n o w in ga n din te llig e n t. D a v is , 269 F. 3d at519. F o r t e n b e r r yn e x t a rg u e s th a t h ew a s u n d u lyp r eju d ic e db yth e p r o s e c u t o r ’s cl osin g re m a rk s. F orten b erryarg u es th a t th e p ro s e c u to r “ask [ed] the j u ryto solve t h e ser i ou s s oci alprobl em of chi ldr ap e by conv i ct i n g” h i m . Fortenberry al so ar gue s t hatt he pr o s e c ut o ri m pr o pe r l y ga vehi s o pi ni o n when het o l d the ju r yth a t a g u iltyv e r d ic t w o u ldb e “a v e r yp r o p e rv e r d ic t.” F orten b erryad m i ts t h a t he didn ot obj ect to the pr ose cu tor’ s statem en ts a t tr ia l a n dt h a t r e v ie w s h o u ldt h e r e fo r e b e fo rp la in e r r o r . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. T h ompson , 4 82 F. 3d7 81 , 7 85 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 7) . Pl ai n- e r r o r revi e w i nvo lve s t he f ol l ow i n g f

ou r prongs: F i rst , there m u stbe an err or ordefectt h at has not been af f i rm ativel y w aivedby the defen da n t . Secon d, t h e err or m u stbe cl ear or obvi ous , i . e. , nots ub j ect to r eas onabl e di sput e. Thi r d, t he e r r orm usthave af fect ed the defenda n t ’ s s u bstanti alri gh t s. F ou rt h , if the ab ove t h ree prongs are sati sf i ed, w e ha ve t h e di scr et i on to correc tthe erroron l y i f it“ser i ou sly af

fect [ s] th e fairne ss, i n teg ri ty or p u b l i c rep u tati on of j u d ic ia l p r o cee d i n gs . ” Pu c ke t tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 29 S. Ct . 1 42 3, 1 429 (2 00 9) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c ita tio n o m itt e d). T h e u l t i m ate qu est i on on revi ew i s “ w h et h er t h e prosecutor ’ s r em arks cast s e r io u s d o u b t o n th e co r r e c tn e s s o f t h e ju r y ’ s v e r d ic t. In a n s w e r in gth is q u e s t i o n , we c o n s i d e r( 1 ) t h e mag n i t u d e o f t h e p r ej u d i c i a le f

fe c to f t he prosecutor ’ s r em arks, ( 2) t h e ef f i cacy of an y cau t i on ary i n st ructi on by the j u dg e, a n d( 3 ) th e stren gth o f th e ev i d en ce su p p ortingthe con victi on . ” T h ompson , 482 F .3 da t 7 8 5 (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d). The di s t r i c tc o ur ti ns t r uc t e d the j ur y be f o r e c l o s i ng ar gum e nt s w e r e m ad e t o “ consi der only th e evi den ce presented du ri n g t h e t ri al , i n cl u di n g t h e sw orn t e s t i m o ny o f

t he w i t ne s s e s a nd the e xhibit s t hat hav e be e n ad m i t t e d; . . . [ and t o r] e m e m be rt hata ny s t at e m e nt s , o bj e c t i o ns , o ra r gum e nt s m ad e b y t he l awye r s a r e no te vi de nc e . ” “W e pr e s um e t hatt he j ur y f o l l o w s t he i ns t r uc t i o nsN o. 08- 20748

5 o f th e tr ia l co u r t u n le s s th e r e is a n o v e r w h e lm in gp r o b a b ilityth a t t h e ju r yw ill beuna bl e t o f

o l l o w t he i ns t ruc t i o n a nd the r e i s as t r o ng pr o babil i t y t hatt he effect i s d ev a stating . ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. T om bl in , 4 6 F .3d 1 369 , 139 0 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) (i n tern a lqu ota ti on m a rk s an dci tati on om i tted ). F orten b erry“pre sen ts no c o nvinc i ng ar gum e ntt hatt he j ur y di d notfo l l o w t he i ns t r uc t i o n give n b y t he tri a lcou rt. ” I

d. at 1390- 91. M or eo ver , t he evi denc e of Fort enber r y’ s gui l tw as ex ten sive, a n dh e d i dn ot attem p t t o refu te h i s gu i lt of the off en se co n d u ct. R ather, F ort en berry a t t em pted on l y t o p ersuad e the j u ry tha tthe d i st ri ctcourt l ac ke d j ur i s di c t i o n t o c o nvic thi m . The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s i n st ructi ons a nd the w ei gh tof

t h e evi de n ce a gainstF ort en berry “ di ssi pa t ed the potenti alprej u di ce of t h e prosecutor ’ s sta t em en t s, ” an d an y errori n t h ei r r egarddoes not r equ i re r e v e r s a l u n d e rth e p la in e r r o rs ta n d a r d . I d. at1391. F ort en berry l ast cha l l en ges t h e speci alcondit i on of hi s li fetim e t erm of sup erv ised r el ease t h at prohibi t s hi m f rom usi n g t h e i n t ernet w i t h ou tpri or w rit t en app rovalf

rom hi s probati on of

f i cer. Fortenberry ad m i t s that he did not c hal l enge t hi s pro vi si on i n t he di st r i c tcour t . Thu s, ourr evi ew of t hi s spe c i al c o n d itio n o f s u p e rv is e dre le a s e is fo rp la in e r r o r . SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. W eat h ert on , 5 6 7 F .3 d1 4 9 , 1 5 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t . den i ed , – S. C t . –, 2009 W L 2 4 2 1 7 3 4 (U .S . O ct. 5 , 2 0 0 9 ). T h e di st ri ctcourtha s w i de di scr et i on to i m pose cond i t i on s of sup ervi sed r e le a s e . Se eUn i t e dS t a t e sv . Pa ul , 2 74F. 3d1 55 , 1 64 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 1) . “The di s t r i c tc o ur tha s t he di s c r e t i o n t o i m po s e c o ndit i o ns r e as o nab l y r e l at e d t o t he h is to r ya n dch a r a c te r is tic s o f t h e d e fe n d a n t o rh is g e n e r a l re h a b ilita tio n .” Uni t e d St at e sv . Cot hran , 302 F . 3d 279 , 290 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m ar ks and cit at i ons om i t t ed) . Thi s di sc r et i on is l i m i t ed by18 U . S. C . § 3583, w h i ch requ i res t h at th e condit i on s m u stbe reasonab l y rel ated t o t h e fact ors set f o r t h i n 18 U . S. C. § 35 53 ( a) ( 1) and ( a) ( 2) ( B)

- ( C) . The s e fac t o r s i nc l ude : ( 1) “t he n ature an d ci rcum st an ces of t h e of fen se and t h e hi st ory an d cha ract eri st i cs of th e d e fe n d a n t,” (2 ) th e n e e d“ to a ffo r da d e q u a te d e te r r e n c e t o c r im in a l co n d u c t,”N o. 08- 20748

6 ( 3) t he nee d “t o pro t ec tthe publ i cf r om f urt hercr i m es of

the def endant , ” and ( 4) t h e need“t o provi de t h e d efen da n tw i t h n eeded[t rai n i n g] , m edi calcare, or ot h er c o r r e c t i on alt r e at m e nti n t he m o s te f fe c t ivem anne r . ” § 3 55 3( a) ( 1)

- ( 2) . The c o n d itio n s “c a n n o t in v o lv e a g r e a te rd e p r iv a tio n o f lib e r tyth a n is re a s o n a b ly n ece ssa ryto ach i ev e th e latter thre e sta tu torygo a l s. ” Paul , 274 F. 3d at165. Thus far , t hi s co ur thas appr o ve d a c o m pl e t e ban o n i nt e r ne tus ag e f o rt he t hr e e y e art e r m o f

s upe rvi s e d rel e as e i m po s e d o n ade fe nda ntw ho “us e d the Inter n ett o encou rage exp l oi t ati on of chi l dren b y seeki n g ou tf el l ow ‘boy l overs’ andpr o vi di n g t h em w i t h a dv i c e o n ho w t o f i nd a nd o bt ai n a c c e s s t o ‘yo ung fri en d s. ’” Id . at169. M or e r ec ent l y, t he Thi r d C i r c ui tuphel d a c ondi t i onal i n t ernet ban , l i ke the on e at i ssue h ere, f or a defen da n t ’ s te n - year t erm of s u p e rv is e dre le a s e . Uni t e d St at e sv . Thi e le m ann , 575 F . 3d 265 , 270 , 278 ( 3dC i r. 2 0 0 9 ). A l t h ou gh w e rec ogn i ze t h e con di t i on alban on the i n t ernet usage f or a l i fet i m e i s a har sh c ondi t i on o f s upervi sed re l ea se , w e c annots ay t hat F o r te n b e r r yh a s d e m o n s tr a te dth a t im p o s itio n o f th e s a m e w a s p la in ly erroneou s. T o show pl ai n error , on e t h i n g t h e app el l an tm u stshow i s an error th a t is cle a ro ro b v io u s . P u ckett , 1 2 9 S . C t . at 142 9. To con st i t u t e cl ear or o bv i o us e r r o r , t he e r r o rm us tb e , a tam i ni m um , c l e ar o r o bvi o us unde rc ur r e nt la w a t t h e tim e o f a p p e lla te co n s id e r a tio n . Un i t ed S t ate s v. D u pre , 117 F . 3d 810, 817 ( 5t h C i r . 1997) . F ort en berry h as n otm ad e a sh ow i n g t h at an y al l egederr or i n i m pos i ng t he c hal l enged supervi se d rel eas e co ndi t i on w as c l earorob vi ous at th e ti m e of h i s tri a lor i s cl ea ro ro b v iou s u n d er th e cu rren t l a w of th i s ci rcu i t. T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F IR M E D .