UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO, 20-TP-20045-BB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

ERIC SEIDEN,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

The United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, 

respectfully submits this response in opposition to the Movant’s, Eric Seiden, motion to amend 

conditions of probation (the “Motion”) (DE 3). Relying on the constraints imposed by the 

COVID-19 pandemic, the Movant asks the Court to modify the conditions of his supervised 

release. As discussed more fully below, the Court should deny the Motion because none of the

factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (“3553(a) factors”) weigh in favor of his request. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

According to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”),

1 in September of 2008, the 

Movant met a boy that was under the age of 16 (the “Minor Victim”) on the internet and the two 

began an online relationship that lasted until about July 2009. See PSI at ¶ 10. During that time, 

the Movant asked the Minor Victim to send him pictures. See Id. On one particular occasion,

the Minor Victim sent the Movant an email that contained a picture of his erect penis. Id. at ¶ 

11. The title of the email was “Enjoy the Cum.” Id. In response, the Movant sent the Minor 

 1 The United States will file the PSI under seal. 

Case 1:20-tp-20045-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2020 Page 1 of 7
2

Victim a picture of his penis after he ejaculated. Id. 

In June of 2009, the Minor Victim advised the Movant that his parents were going to be 

out of town. Id. at ¶ 13. The Movant suggested that they meet. Id. To encourage the Minor 

Victim, the Movant told him that he would sleep with the Minor Victim whenever the Minor 

Victim wanted, that he loved the Minor Victim, and that he would bring a hat for the Minor Victim

to wear to the hotel so that the Minor Victim could disguise himself. Id. at ¶ 14. The Movant 

also advised the Minor Victim that he never wanted to meet anyone so badly in his entire left. Id. 

On June 19, 2009, the Minor Victim agreed to meet the Movant. Id. at ¶ 15. The 

Movant drove from South Florida to Brevard County, which is approximately a three hour drive, 

to meet the Minor Victim. Id. at ¶ 16. The next day, the Movant picked the Minor Victim up

from his home and they drove to the Hampton Inn. Id. While at the hotel, the Movant and the 

Minor Victim engaged in sexual intercourse. Id. at ¶ 17. Specifically, they performed oral sex 

on one another and the Movant performed anal digital penetration on the Minor Victim. Id.

After the encounter, the Movant sent emails to the Minor Victim, recapping what

happened. Id. at 18. In the emails, the Movant described how the two took g-rated pictures and 

how it felt to kiss the Minor Victim. Id. The Movant also reiterated that he loved the Minor 

Victim and stated that he was so happy to have the Minor Victim in his life. Id.

On April 6, 2010, a federal grand jury sitting in the Middle District of Florida indicted the 

Movant, charging him with knowingly inducing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for 

the purpose of producing a visual depiction which was transmitted via the Internet, in violation of 

Title 18, United States Code, 2251(a), transferring obscene material to an individual who had not 

attained the age of 16, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1470, and using the 

Case 1:20-tp-20045-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2020 Page 2 of 7
3

Internet to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 2422(b). Id. at ¶¶ 1-3. 

On August 18, 2010, the Movant pleaded guilty to enticing a minor to engage in sexual 

activity. See United States v. Seiden, Docket Entry 41 (“MD DE”).2

 The Honorable United 

States District Court Judge Anne C. Conway sitting in the Middle District of Florida sentenced the 

Movant to 135 months in prison, followed by 20 years of supervised release (MD DE 51). 

In March of 2020, the Movant was released from prison and began his term of supervised 

release. A few months later, on July 29, 2020, his supervision was transferred to the Southern 

District of Florida (DE 1). On October 29, 2020, the Movant filed the instant Motion, seeking to 

have the conditions of his supervised release modified (DE 3). Specifically, the Movant asks this 

Court to permit him to: (1) have a computer with access to the Internet in his home; (2) travel to 

the Middle District of Florida without prior notice to, or approval from, his probation officer; and 

(3) attend gatherings with family and friends at which minors will be present (DE 3 at 6). 

II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Courts are authorized by statute to modify conditions of supervised release “at any time 

prior to the expiration or termination of the term of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(e)(2). 

Before doing so, however, the Court must consider the 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) 

and (e). Relevant to this case, the conditions that a court may consider in deciding to modify the 

Movant’s supervised release are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history 

and characteristics of the Movant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote 

 

2 For ease of reference, the Middle District of Florida’s docket will be referred to as “MD DE __”

and all cites to the instant case will be referred to as “DE ___.”

Case 1:20-tp-20045-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2020 Page 3 of 7
4

respect for law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need to deter future criminal 

conduct; (4) to protect the public from further crimes of the Movant; and (5) to provide the Movant 

with needed medical care. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) and (a)(2)(a)-(d). 

III. ARGUMENT

As mentioned above, the Movant asks this Court to modify his supervised release to permit 

him to use a computer with access to the Internet while in his home, travel to the Middle District 

of Florida without prior notice or approval, and to attend gatherings where minors will be present. 

The Court should deny the Movant’s Motion because none of the 3553(a) factors weigh in favor 

of his requests. 

First, the Defendant asks the Court to grant him use of a computer with access to the 

Internet so that he can perform medical, religious, and banking activities. He argues that because 

of the restrictions that have been imposed due to the coronavirus pandemic, he cannot engage in 

those activities without access to the Internet. The Movant’s request, however, is especially

troubling in light of the nature and circumstances of his offense. The Movant was convicted on 

charges stemming from meeting a minor using the Internet, exchanging sexually explicit 

photographs with the minor via the Internet, and then using the computer and Internet to entice the

minor to have sex with him, which he did. Providing a computer and Internet to the Movant will 

give him the means and opportunity to commit future crimes. As the Eleventh Circuit noted, 

there is a “strong link between child pornography and the Internet, and the need to protect the 

public, particularly children, from sex offenders.” United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1092 

(11th Cir. 2003). Indeed, “[t]he particular facts of this case highlight the concomitant dangers of 

Case 1:20-tp-20045-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2020 Page 4 of 7
5

the Internet and the need to protect both the public and sex offenders themselves from its potential 

abuses.” Id. at 1093. 

Furthermore, the main basis for the Movant’s request—that, without the Internet, he is 

unable to engage in medical, religious, and banking activities—is not accurate. While the 

government understands that having access to the Internet will make those activities easier, there 

are alternative methods available to the Movant to participate in them. For instance, the Movant 

can order his medication and conduct his banking activities by phone. The Movant can also take 

advantage of mail-order prescriptions. Additionally, while the government is not insensitive to 

the Movant’s desire to attend religious services, the risk of reoffending is too great to permit him 

access to the Internet. The Movant can also attend religious services in person, at a different 

synagogue since the majority of the restrictions imposed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic

have been lifted. 

Second, the Movant has asked the Court to permit him to travel to the Middle District of 

Florida without prior notice or approval. Again, the nature and circumstances of his offense 

weighs against this modification. Indeed, to carry out the offense, the Movant drove from South 

Florida to Brevard County, about a three-hour drive, to meet the Minor Victim for the purpose of 

having sex. There would be no way to ensure that the Movant would not reoffend if his 

movements out of the district were not monitored. In order to protect the public, particularly 

children, the probation office in the Middle District of Florida needs sufficient time, prior to the 

Movant’s arrival in its jurisdiction, to verify that the location where he will be residing is suitable 

and does not provide access to minors. 

Case 1:20-tp-20045-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2020 Page 5 of 7
6

The government understands that the Movant may want to take care of his mother, but 

given the nature of his conviction and how he carried it out, it would present too much of a risk to 

permit the Movant to travel without adequate monitoring. Also, the Movant has made reference 

to a very supportive family, who, presumably, would be able to assist him in caring for his mother

in cases of an emergency.

Lastly, the Movant seeks to modify the so-called “no-contact with minors” provision of his 

supervised release. He asks to have supervised family and friend gatherings where his niece and 

nephew may be present (DE 3 at ¶ 7). The government acknowledges the social and emotional

benefits of family functions, but the fact that the Movant is a hands-on abuser of children weighs

heavily against allowing him to be around minors, even with other family members around. As 

the Eighth Circuit has noted, it is not unreasonable to refuse to “incorporate a blanket exception”

to the no-contact rule for the minors in a convicted sex offender’s family “given the fact that most 

sexual abuse of children take place at the hands of family members or friends.” United States v. 

Mickelson, 433 F.3d 1050, 1058 (8th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the Movant has not been completely

forbidden from seeing his niece and nephew, but is merely required to seek permission prior to 

doing so. See MD DE 56 at 4, ¶ 3. 

Case 1:20-tp-20045-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2020 Page 6 of 7
7

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny the 

Defendant’s Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

 ARIANA FAJARDO ORSHAN

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: /s/ Quinshawna S. Landon

QUINSHAWNA S. LANDON

ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

Florida Bar No. 99835

99 NE 4th Street, 4th Floor

Miami, Florida 33132-2111

Tel. No. (305) 961-9362

E-mail: Quinshawna.Landon@usdoj.gov 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 12, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.

/s/ Quinshawna S. Landon

QUINSHAWNA S. LANDON

ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

Case 1:20-tp-20045-BB Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/12/2020 Page 7 of 7