UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-TP-20045-BB-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 ERIC SEIDEN’S ANSWER TO

Plaintiff, GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN

 OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S 

v. MOTION TO AMEND CONDITIONS

 OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

ERIC A. SEIDEN,

Defendant.

 /

The Defendant, ERIC A. SEIDEN, hereby provides his Answer to the

Government’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Amend Conditions of

Supervised Release1

filed by the Plaintiff, United States of America, on November 12,

2020 and states:

1. The position of the United States, as reflected in its Government’s

Response, is untenable. The Government, in its Response, alludes to the theme of

term of “just punishment.” The Defendant could not agree more, with that very theme

given the multiple issues which favor the granting of your Defendant’s Motion2 as

Defendant’s circumstances of offense are thoroughly mitigated by:

• The passage of time, eleven and a half years, since the actual

offense’s most recent event (June 20, 2009), using the

Government’s date as contained in its Response;

• The Defendant’s successful participation during his ten year

incarceration period in multiple ameliatory programs, first as a

1Doc. 4.

2Doc. 3.

Case 1:20-tp-20045-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2020 Page 1 of 4
Page 2

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

RE: United States v. Eric A. Seiden

Case No.: 1:20-TP-20045-BB-1

Eric Seiden’s Answer to Government’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Amend Conditions of

Supervised Release

participant, subsequently as an instructor within the Bureau of

Prisons;

• The complete unforeseeability of the current COVID scenario which

causes blind reliance on tele-medicine, internet banking, pharmacy

prescription efforts, participation in religious events, as well as

everyday shopping, combined with the equally unforeseen trend of

cyber reliance as an everyday occurrence, even in the absence of

a Coronavirus type pandemic;

• The real time situational reality of the possibility of the Defendant

having to travel to the Middle District of Florida to attend to his

mother’s physical and financial needs, as unforseen circumstances

may dictate;

• The agreement by the parents of nieces and nephews that Mr.

Seiden be permitted to engage in family gatherings where minor

children are present, without restraint.

2. The Government mischaracterizes the relief sought as a global request,

painting Mr. Seiden as serial pedofile. The reality is that the events which led to the

Defendant’s conviction and subsequent incarceration, took place with one victim, more

than a decade ago. While not minimizing the seriousness of what took place, it is

necessary for it to be seen in its true light, as opposed to the inaccurate picture the

Government seeks to portray, implying - without any viable proof or sustenance - that

Case 1:20-tp-20045-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2020 Page 2 of 4
Page 3

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

RE: United States v. Eric A. Seiden

Case No.: 1:20-TP-20045-BB-1

Eric Seiden’s Answer to Government’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Amend Conditions of

Supervised Release

the Defendant’s “risk of reoffending is too great” were he to be permitted: to use the

internet for health, religious, banking and shopping purposes; travel to Maitland, Florida

to attend to his elderly mother’s ever increasing health related or financial needs; or, to

participate in family-related matters where minor children are present.

3. The Government suggests that the fact the Defendant has a supportive

family “presumably would be able to assist him in caring for his mother in cases of

emergency”.3 The reality is, however, the Defendant’s only sister is a businessperson

in charge of an all consuming family enterprise in South Florida and has two young

children. Thus, she is hardly in a viable nor realistic position to be of immediate help

were an out of town issue with the mother to arise. Consequently, this leaves Mr.

Seiden as the responsible caregiver. 

4. With respect to the Government’s suggestion of Mr. Seiden having an

elevated risk of recidivism, if anything, your Defendant has displayed by his

accomplishments during incarceration via participation in multiple programs, that the

opposite of that suggestion is true. Mr. Seiden is NOT a likely recidivist. Testimonials

from parents of the children he would be in contact with further underscore this point.

5. Put differently, the Government’s position is not one of prudent weariness

but one of subtle yet, paradoxically, wild exaggeration as evinced by his being wrongly

called a “hands on abuser of children,”4

 falsely implying, for sordid impact, there were

3Doc. 4, Page 6, Paragraph 1.

4Doc. 4, Page 6, Paragraph 2.

Case 1:20-tp-20045-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2020 Page 3 of 4
Page 4

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

RE: United States v. Eric A. Seiden

Case No.: 1:20-TP-20045-BB-1

Eric Seiden’s Answer to Government’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Amend Conditions of

Supervised Release

(or could be) multiple victims when, thankfully, this matter was limited to only one victim

who, in fact, was not a family member nor friend, thus further nullifying the

Government’s reliance on U.S. v. Mickelson.5 Put differently, the Government’s

argument in response to the Defendant’s Motion is one dependant emotion and

innuendo, while the Defendant’s position is based on fact and reality. 

6. The Government’s Response does acknowledge that this Court is imbued

with the authority to modify the Conditions of Supervised Release by statute6 and, as

your Defendant urged in his Motion, the Court’s inherent power to do justice.

7. Accordingly, the Defendant reaffirms his Motion to Amend Conditions of

Probation and respectfully requests this Court to amend his conditions of probation as

requested therein in the interests of justice.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 18, 2020 undersigned electronically filed

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

LAW OFFICES OF MARIO S. CANO

Attorneys for the Defendant 

Florida Bar Number 279412

2121 Ponce de Leon BL #950

Coral Gables, FL 33134-5230

Telephone: 305/442-2121

Facsimile: 305/441-2121

MCano@CanoLawMiami.com

By: s/Mario S. Cano 

MARIO S. CANO

5

433 F. 3d 1050, 1058 (8

th Cir. 2006).

6

18 USC §3582(e)(2) and 18 USC §3583(b) and (e).

Case 1:20-tp-20045-BB Document 8 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2020 Page 4 of 4