# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 21 45

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Dan ny G. W ol fe

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 3, 2 01 8 Fi le d: May 9, 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re GRUENDER, BENTON, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

D a n n y G

. Wol fe ap pe al s a di st ric t co ur t or de r se nt en ci ng hi m to ei gh te en 1

m on th s of im

pr is on m en t fo r vi ol at in g th e te rm s of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. W e affi rm

.

The Hon or ab le Bri an C. W im es , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.On May 24
, 20 05
, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced W ol fe to on e hu nd red ei gh ty

m on th s of im

pr is on m en t, fo ll owe d by su pe rv is ed rel eas e fo r li fe, ba se d on hi s gu il ty pl ea to ch il d po rn og rap hy of fen se s. He was rel eas ed to su pe rv is io n on Feb ru ary 17
, 20 17

. Afte r ab ou t th ree week s, W ol fe’s pr ob at io n of f i c e r c o nt act ed W ol fe an d
le arn ed th at he po ss es se d a co m pu te r (a sm art ph on e), whi ch vi ol at ed th e te rm s of hi s

su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Fi ve da y s la te r, W ol fe’s pr ob at io n of fic er an d an ot he r pr ob at io n of fic er vi si te d W ol fe’s res id en ce an d di sc ov ered th at he st il l ha d a s mart ph on e. W ol fe ad m it te d to ha vi ng ad ul t po rn og rap hy on th e sm art ph on e, whi ch al so vi ol at ed
th e te rm s of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. In th e di st ric t co ur t’s rev oc at io n he ari ng , W ol fe
ad m it te d to posse ssi ng an una uth or iz ed co m

put er –th e sm ar t phon e– an d por

nograp hy. 2

The di st r ic t co ur t im

po se d a se nt en ce of ei gh te en m on th s, whi ch was hi gh er th an th e ad vi so ry ran ge of fo ur to te n m on th s, ci ti ng a ne ed fo r sp eci fic de te rren ce

an d t he pro te ct io n o f so ci et y . The d is tri ct co ur t ex pr es se d con cern th at W ol fe u se d

a sm art ph on e an d po ss es se d po rn og rap hy le ss th an a m on th aft er hi s re l e a s e an d

co nt in ue d u si ng th e smart p ho ne de sp it e a warn in g fr om hi s p ro ba ti on off

ic er. The
di st ric t co ur t al so ag reed wit h th e go ve rn m en t th at so m e gr ap hi c le tt ers W ol fe wro te

on hi s sm art ph on e ab ou t a pa st vi ct im were “ tro ub li ng .” W ol fe arg ue s on ap pe al th at th e di st ric t co ur t e r r e d in rel y in g on th e le tt ers , whi ch were al le ge dl y pa rt of hi s th erap y an d wer e n ot on e o f th e st ip ul at ed vi ol at io ns at i ss ue

.

W e rev ie w rev oc at io n se nt en ces un de r th e sa m e de fere nt ia l ab us e of di sc ret io n
st an da rd th at we ap pl y to in it ia l se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in gs

. Uni te d St at es v. Rich ey , 75 8

The Apr il 4, 20 17 Vio la ti on Rep or t al le ge d vi ol at io ns of tw o co m pu te r-re la te d 2
sp eci al co nd it io ns , and th e jud gm en t b el ow l is ts th e wro ng on e as ad m it te d. Wolf e ad m it te d to vi ol at in g th e sp eci al co nd it io n th at he “ sh al l no t po ss es s any co m pu te r” bu t de ni ed po ss es si ng “ an y co m pu te r or el ect ro ni c de vi ce wit h acce ss to an y ‘on- li ne

co m pu te r se rv ic e.’” Bec au se th e two vi ol at io ns are th e sa m e gr ad e, an d be cau se th ere is no rel ia nc e on acce ss to an on li ne co m pu te r se rv ic e in th e se nt en ce, th e erro r in th e jud gm en t i s h arm le ss

.
-2

-F.3 d 99 9, 10 01 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). W e m us t en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pro ced ur al erro r an d t ha t t he sen te nc e was su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. Id

.

Co nt rary to W ol fe’s arg um en t, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t co m m it pr oc ed ur al

erro r in co ns id eri ng th e le tt ers

. I t i s w e l l e s ta bl is he d th at , at se nt en ci ng , “ [a] co ur t

ne ed no t ap pl y th e us ua l ru le s of ev id en ce an d m ay co ns id er ‘m at eri al th at wou ld no t be ad m is si bl e in an ad ve rs ary cri m in al tri al .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. Lo ng , 84 3 F.3 d 33 8,
34 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Z e n tg ra f
, 20 F.3 d 90 6, 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 )). The re was no th in g im pr op er ab o u t r e vi ewin g th e le tt ers fo un d on W ol fe’s

sm art ph on e at se nt en ci ng si nc e W ol fe’s po ss es si on of th e sm art ph on e vi ol at ed th e
te rm s of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. W hi le W ol fe is co rrec t th at “ a di st ric t co ur t co m m it s
p r o c e d u ral erro r

. . . by ba si ng a se nt en ce on un pr ov en , di sp ut ed al le ga ti on s rat he r th a n f a c t s , ” Rich ey , 75 8 F.3 d at 10 02
, th at is no t wha t oc cu rred he re. The di st ric t

co ur t di d no t m ak e an y fin di ng s ba se d on th e le tt ers al on e

. In st ead
, it m erel y

co ns id ered th e fact th at W ol fe wro te th es e le tt ers as fu rth er ev id en ce t h a t hi s vi ol at io ns (p os se ss in g a sm art ph on e an d po rn og rap hy) an d th ei r oc cu rren ce sh or tl y aft er hi s rel eas e in di cat ed a ris k to so ci et y an d a ne ed fo r de te rren ce. Thi s was
pr oc ed ur al ly pro pe r.

The se nt en ce is al so su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. W e rev ie w a se nt en ce fo r

reas on ab le ne ss in rel at io n to th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge an d th e fact or s fro m 18
U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) as cit ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (e). Se e Uni te d St at es v. Nel so n , 4 53
F.3 d 10 04
, 10 06 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). “ ‘A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n an d im po se s

an un reas on ab le sen te nc e whe n i t fa il s t o c on si de r a rel ev an t an d si gn ifi can t fa ct or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an i r rel ev an t or im pr op er fact or , or co ns id ers th e
ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it s a cl ear erro r of

jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s.’”
Uni te d St at es v. Kr ei ti ng er , 57 6 F.3 d 50 0, 50 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. Min e r , 5 4 4 F

. 3 d 93 0, 93 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). The di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e rel ev an t fact or s he re, an d th ere is no in di cat io n it erre d in w e i g h i ng th os e fact or s. The po rn og rap hy an d co m pu te r sp eci al co nd it io ns were im po rta nt in li gh t of W ol fe’s

-3

-or ig in al se xu al of fen se s. His fla gr an t vi ol at io n of bo th co nd it io ns le ss th an a m on th
aft er hi s rel eas e de m on st rat ed th at he ne ed ed de te rren ce fro m fu tu re wro ng fu l

co nd uc t. Acco rd in gl y , th e se nt en ce of ei gh te en m on th s of im pr is on m en t was wit hi n th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d is cret io n. We affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-