2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-3-2009 

# U SA v . P aul Thiele m ann P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2335

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . P aul Thie le m ann" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 756. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/756T he H onor abl e T hom as I
. V anas ki e, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct * J udge f o r th e M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng by des i gnat i on. P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

__________ N o. 08- 2335

__________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. P AUL R. T HI E L E M ANN, A ppel l ant

__________ A p p e a l f ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fo r th e D istri ct of

D elaw are ( D
. C

. N o. 1- 07- cr - 00091- 1) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on

___________ A r gued M ay20, 2009

___________ B efor e: R E N D E L L and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges , and

V A N A SK I E , D i s tr i ctJ udge *2 (O p inion F il ed : A u g u st 3, 20 0 9 ) L AR RI CK B. S T AP L E T ON, E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) 50 R i t t enhous e Pl ace A r dm or e, PA 19003 A t t or ney f

orAppel lant E DM OND F AL GOWS KI , E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney O ffi ce of the U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 1007 N or th O r ange Str eet , Sui t e 700 P. O

. B ox 2046 W i l m i ngt on, D E 19899 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee

___________ OP I NI ON

___________
G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udge: T he def endant , Paul T hi el emann, w as i ndi ct ed and p l e a d e d g u i l tyt o o n e c o u n t o f r e c e i v i n g c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h y . He w as s ent ence d t o the s t atut orym axi m u m o f 240 m onths of impr i s onm ent , pl us 10 y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e s ubj ectt o a num berof condi t i ons , i ncl udi ng tw o Speci al C ondi t i ons of Super vi s i on. T hi el emann appeal s hi s pr i s on s ent ence becaus e theP h ill ip s is a c o -d e f e n d a n t w h o e v e n tu a llyp lea d e d g u iltyto 1 d i s tr i b u t i o n o f

c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h y i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C. § 2252A ( a) ( 1) & ( b) ( 1)

. H e r ece i ved a 240- m onth s ent ence . 3 D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d n o n -c h a rg e d re lev a n t co n d u c t in f a s h i o n i n g h i s s e n t e n c e . T h i e l e ma n n a l s o c h a l l e n g e s t h e two Speci al C ondi t i ons of Supervi s ed R el eas e i m pos ed bythe D istri ct C o u rt
. T h ese co n d it ion s res tr icted T h iel em an n ’s c o m p u ter u se a n d h is v iew in g o f se x u a llye x p licit m a ter ial. W e re jec t T h iele m a n n ’s a rg u m e n ts c o n c e rn in g h is r el evantconductand w e conc l ude thatboth Speci al C ondi t i ons o f S u p e rv ise d R e lea se m u st b e u p h e ld . In p a rticu la r, w e h o ld th a t restri ct i ng T hiel em ann ’s p o ss e ss io n a n d v iew in g o f se x u a lly expl i ci tm at er i al , as defi ned i n 18 U
. S. C

. § 2256( 2) ( A ) , does not vi ol at e the C ons t i tut i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entand s ent ence of A pr i l 30, 2008. I. O n Ja n u a ry 1 9 , 2 0 0 7 , T h iele m a n n tra n sm itte d c h ild pornogr aphyt o anotheri nt ern etus erthr ough hi s A m er i ca O nl i n e e-m ai l

. A m er i ca O nl i ne det ect ed the tr ans m i s s i on and r eport ed i t t o the D el aw ar e St at e Pol i ce ( “D SP”) , w ho exec ut ed a s e a rc h w a rr a n t a n d s e iz e d T h ie le m a n n ’s c o m p u te r o n F e b ru ary 23, 2007. T he D SP found seve r al hundr ed pornogr aphi c i m ages o f c h ild re n , as w e ll a s c o m p u ter ize d lo g s o f o n lin e “ c h a ts” w ith C hr i s t opherPhi l l i ps ( “Phi l l i ps ”) , an i nt ernetus er w ith w hom 1W e r epr oduce, i nfr a, a s egmentof a “ chat ” betw een 2 T hi el emann and Phi l l i ps on J une 11, 2006, as an exampl e of the “cha t s ” thatt ook pl ace betw een thes e tw o m en. 4 T hi el emann had a s exual r el at i ons hi p. 2 T he tr anscr i pt s of the onl i ne “c hat s ” r evea l ed, among ot herth i n g s , th a ta f

t e rb o a s t i n g a b o u ta n u mbe ro f a l l eged s exual encount er s w i th m i n or s , T hi el emann encour aged Phi l l i ps t o have s ex w i th an ei ght

- y ear - ol d vi ct i m – a fe m al e chi l d w hom P h illip s c o u ld c o n tr o l ( “ th e v ic tim ” ). T hi el emann t hen s entPhi l l i ps a pi ctur e of a t oddl er p erf o rm ing a sex u al ac t on an ad u ltm ale a n d claim ed the p ictu re depi ct ed hi m ( T hi el emann) and a mi norover w hom T hi el emann had contr o l. T hi el emann offer ed t o “w al k [Phi l l i ps ] thr ough” th e s e s e x a c t s wi th th e v i c t i m. L at er , T hi el emann of

fer ed Phi l l i ps $20 t o turn on hi s w eb c a m a n d p lac e th e v ic tim o n P h ill ip s’s lap so th e v ictim w o u ld s ee Thi el ema n n’ s expos ed peni s . Phi l l i ps compl i ed. T h iele m an n then o ff

ere d P h il li p s $ 1 0 0 to ru b the v ict im ’s g e n itals a n d lift u p h e r sk irt, w h ich P h ill ip s d id . T h e “ c h a t” tr ans cr i pti m pli es thatPhi l l i ps al s o expos ed hi m s el f t o the vi ct i m . T hi el emann t hen as ked Phi l l i ps t o m as turbat e w i th the vi ct i m on hi s l ap, buti ti s uncl eari f Phi l l i ps di d s o. T hes e save d “cha t ” fi l es on T hi el emann’ s comput erl ed th e p o lice to P h ill ip s, w h o d e n ied e x p o sin g h im se lf to th e v ictimT he vi ct i m contr adi ct ed Phi l l i ps ’ s s t at ement : “D ur i ng the 3 in itia l in ter v iew , w h e n a sk e d if sh e e v e r h a d to to u c h a m a le peni s , the 8 y earol d gi r l [i dent i fi ed Phi l l i ps ]

. ” A pp. 68. T hi el emann had al s o engage d i n expl i ci tchat s w i th other 4 m e n d u rin g w h ic h h e d isc u ss e d h a v in g se x u a l re latio n s w ith chi l dr en, and s ent and r ece i ved chi l d pornogr aphy

. A n um ber of Thi el em an n ’s asso ciates w ere sep ara tel yind ict ed an d pl eade d 5 ort ouchi ng heri nappr o p ri at el y . T hi el emann l at ercl ai m ed he 3 d i d n o tk n o w t h e c h i l d wa s o n th e we b c a m. O n J une 26, 2007, a G r and J ury convene d i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our t for the D i s tr i ct of D el aw ar e and re turned a n e ig h tee n -c o u n t in d ictm e n t a g a in st T h iele m a n n c h a rg in g h im w ith th e f

o llo w in g : C o u n ts O n e a n d T w o , p ro d u c tio n o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h ya n d c o n sp ira c yto p ro d u c e c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yin vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 2251( a) & ( e) ; C ount s T hr ee thr ough S i x , r e c e i p to f

c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h yi n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C. § 2252A ( a) ( 2) & ( b) ( 1) ; C ount s Seven th rough E l even, d is tr ib u tio n o f

c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yin v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 A (a )(1 ) & (b )(1 ); C o u n t T w e lv e , p o ss e ss io n o f c h ild p o rno g rap h yin v iolati o n o f 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 2 A (a)(5)(B ) & ( b) ( 2) ; C ount s T hi r t een t hr ough Sevent een, r ece i pt/ di s tr i but i on o f o b s c e n i tyd e p i c t i n g c h i l d r e n i n vi o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C. §§ 1466A ( a) (2)(A ) & ( B ) , and 2252A ( b) ( 1) ; and C ount E i ght een, po sses sion o f o b sce n ityd ep ict ing ch il d ren in v iolati on of 18 U

. S. C

. §§ 1466A ( b) ( 2) ( A ) & ( B ) , and 2252A ( b) ( 2)

. T he offe ns e conduc tchar ged i n thi s i ndi ct m en t oc curr ed betw een J une 16, 2006, and February23, 2007. 4gu i l tyt o v ari ou s si m i l ar charges. T hi el emann’ s couns el compl ai ned t hathe had be en deni ed 5 acces s t o the comput erhar d dr i ve and f i l es . W e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe G overnm ent ’ s di s cl os ur e o f the pri nt ed copi es of the “cha t s ” and i t s offe rt o r evea l al l o f the comput er i zed i nform at i on i n the pr es ence of a D SP com put erexperts at i s fi ed a n yd is c o v e ry c h a lle n g e . Ind ee d , af

ter the G o v ern m en t o ff

ere d ac ce ss to the h ard d riv e , an d T h iele m a n n ’s c o u n se l m e t w ith a D S P o f f icia l, T hi el emann’ s couns el neverr eques ted an otherm eet i ng orany fur theracc es s . M or eover , the D i s tr i ctC our toffe r ed t o cont i nue 6 Pr i ort o t r i al , the G o v ernm entdi s cl os ed copi es of the “cha t ” l o gs t o T hi el emann. H ow ever , on O ct ober12, 2007, T h iel e m a n n m o v e d to c o m p e l p ro d u c tio n o f a c o p yo f

h is c o m p u ter ’s e n tire h a rd d riv e . T h e G o v e rn m e n t re f u se d to produ ce i t , ci t i ng 18 U
. S .C

. § 3 50 9(m )( 2)( A ), w hich provides: N otw i ths t andi ng R ul e 16 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, a co ur ts hal l deny , i n any cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng, any r eques t bythe def endant t o co py , ph otograph, du pli cat e, or ot herw i se r ep r o d u c e a n yp r opertyorm at er i al thatcons t i tut es chi l d pornogr aphy

. . . , s o l ong as the G overnm ent m a k e s th e p ro p e rtyo r m a ter ial re a s o n a b ly a v a ilab le to th e d e f

e n d a n t. T he G overnm entt ol d T hiel emann he w oul d have s uffi ci ent access t o the com pu t er fi l es. 5T h iele m a n n ’s s e n ten c in g h e a rin g so th a t T h iele m a n n ’s f o re n sic e x p e rt c o u ld c o n d u c t an e x a m in a tio n o f th e c o m p u ter if T hi el emann s o des i r ed. T hi el emann de cl i ned. A ddi t i onal l y , at n o p o in t o n a p p e a l w a s th e iss u e o f a c c e ss ra ise d o th e r th a n in connec t i on w i th r el evantconduct

. W e conc l ude that T h iele m a n n ’s a rg u m e n t h a s n o m e rit. A s not ed above , T hi el emann pl eade d gui l ty to r ece i ptof 6 ch il d p o rno g ra p h yin v iolati o n o f 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 2 A (a)(2) & ( b )(1)

. T he s t atut oryi ndex of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes (A p p en d ix A ) i d e n ti fies U

. S

. S

. G

. § 2 G 2
. 2 as th e C h ap ter 2 Of f e n s e Gu i d e l i n e a p p l i c a b l e t o § 2 2 5 2 A. 7 O n Jan u ary18, 2008, T hi el emann pl eade d gui l tyt o a on e-coun tInform at i on chargi ng him w i th recei pt of chil d pornogr aph y (18 U

. S. C

. § 2252A ( a) ( 2) & ( b) ( 1) )

. I n the M emora ndum of Pl ea A gr eement , T hi el emann a dm i t t ed thathe e n g a g e d i n “ c h a ts ” w ith P h illip s , a n d th a t d u ri n g a “ c h a t,” Phi l l i ps “had on hi s l ap a mi nor , vi s i bl e t o the def endant , and at th e d e f e n d a n t’s e n c o u ra g e m e n t an d in d u c e m e n t [ P h ill ip s] d id sim u late m a stu rb a tio n o f th e m in o r, an d d id p o se th e m in o r in order t o effect the l asci vious exh i bit i on of the m i no r’s p u b ic ar ea. ” A pp. 40. T hi el emann accor di ngl ys us pended hi s m ot i ons t o compel pr oduct i on of evi dence

. II. Ats e n t e n c i n g th e Di s tr i c tCou r ti n i t i a l l ya p p l i e dU. S

. S

. G. § 2G 2. 2, w hi ch i n thi s cas e ca rr i ed a ba s e off ens e l evel of 22. 6 Ho we v e r , th e c o u r t r e l i e d o n th e “ c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e ” i n U. S

. S

. G.W e ar e s at i s fi ed that the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l ydet erm i ned 7 T h iele m a n n ’s o f

f e n se lev e l. A s th e G o v e rn m e n t p o in ted o u t: “[t ] her e i s no ambi gui ty i n the M emora ndum of Pl ea A gr eement orSect i ons 1B 1. 2 and 2G 2. 2( c) ( 1)

. T he def endant ’ s rul e of l eni tyar gum enti s w i thoutm er i t
. . . . ” G ov’ tB r . 37. 8 § 2G 2. 2( c) , w hi ch di r ect s di s tr i ctcourt s i ns t ead t o ut i l i ze U
. S. S. G

. § 2G 2. 1 i f: ( 1) “the off ens e i nvol ved caus i ng, tr ans por t i ng, p erm i t t i ng, oroffe r i ng ors eeki ng bynot i ce or advert i s ement , a mi nort o e n g a g e i n s exual l yexpl i ci tconductfor th e p u rp o s e o f

p ro d u c in g a v i s u a l d e p ic tio n o f s u c h c o n d u c t,” a n d ( 2 ) th e r e s u l t i n g o f

f e n s e l e v e l i s g r e a t e rth a n u n d e rU. S

. S

. G. § 2G 2. 2. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rtloo k ed to T h iel em an n ’s e n c o u ra g e m e n t o f

th e m o les tatio n o f th e v ictim a n d a c c o rd in g ly appl i ed U

. S. S. G

. § 2G 2. 1, w hi ch carr i ed a bas e off ens e l evel of 32. T hi el emann a r gued that the D i s tr i ct C our t s houl d nothave take n this rel ev an t un ch arg ed co n d u ct i n to ac co u n t. H o w ev er, the cr o ss-r efe r ence and r el at ed G ui del i nes pr ovi s i ons and appl i cat i on not es di r ect the D i s tr i ctC our tt o do s o, and the D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rl ycon si dered T h iele m a n n ’s in v o lv e m e n t in the mol es t at i on of the vi ct i m . See U ni t ed St at es v. G ar ci a, 411 F
. 3 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 7 6 -78 (10 th C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). T h u s, u n d er U
. S

. S

. G

. § 2 G 2
. 1 , the D istrict C o u rt i ncr eas ed Thi el emann’ s b a s e offe ns e l evel by10 poi nt s and gave hi m a thr ee- poi ntcr edi tforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , l eavi ng the G ui del i nes s ent ence i n exce s s of t he st atut ory m axi m um of 24 0 m on ths. 7Fu r th e r , t h e e v i d e n c e o f th e ma n y“ c h a t s ” a n d t he encour age m en t of

sex u al ac ti v ityw ith m ino rs clear l yes t abl i s hed thatT hi elem an n ’s act i ons w er e partof a c om m on pl an and c o u rse o f p ra c tice th a t w e re re lev a n t to h is c h a rg e d c o n d u c t. “Sexual l yexpl i ci tconduct , ” forpurpos es of thi s Speci al 8 C ondi t i on, i s defi ned pur s uantt o the chi l d pornogr aphys t atut e, and i ncl udes : “ac tual ors i m ul at ed (i ) s exual i nt er cour s e, in c lu d in g g e n ital-g e n ital, o ra l-g e n ital, an a l-g e n ital, o r o ra l-a nal, w h e th e r b e tw e e n p e rso n s o f th e sa m e o r o p p o si te s e x ; (ii) bes t i al i ty ; ( i i i ) m as turbat i on; ( i v) s adi s t i c orm as ochi s t i c abus e; or( v) l as ci vi ous exhi bi t i on of t he geni t al s orpubi c ar ea of any p erso n . ” 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 6 (2)(A ). 9 T he D istr i ctC our tthen s ent ence d T hi el emann t o the statu torym ax im u m o f 24 0 m o n ths an d im p o sed a ten -y ea r t erm o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , i n c l u d i n g s e v e r a l S p e c i a l Co n d i t i o n s , two o f w h ich T h iele m a n n c h a llen g e s o n a p p e a l: T h iele m a n n is pr event ed fr om ( 1) “ow n[i ng] or oper at [i ng] a p ers onal comput erw i th I nt ernetacc es s i n a hom e or a tanyotherl ocat i on, i ncl udi ng empl oym ent , w i th o u tpr i orw r i t t en appr oval of the Pr obat i on O ffi ce” ; and ( 2) “pos s es s [in g] orvi ew [i ng] any m at eri al s, i ncludi ng pictures, ph otographs, bo o k s, w ri t i ng s, d ra w in g s o r v id e o g a m e s d e p ictin g a n d /o r d e sc rib in g se x u a lly expl i ci tconduct defi ned i n T i t l e 18 of the U ni t ed St at es C ode, 8 Sect i on 2256( 2)

. ” A pp. 154- 55. T he D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed j udgm enton A pr i l 30, 2008, and Thi el emann t i m el y appea l ed. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U
. S. C

. § 1291 and 18 U

. S. C

. § 3742( a)

. T he D i s tr i ctC our thadPl ai n err or r equi r es that ther e be an err or , thatthe err orbe 9 pl ai n, and thatthe pl ai n err oraff ects u b stan ti al r i ght s . O l ano, 5 0 7 U .S

. a t 7 3 2 -3 4
. “ A f f e c t su b sta n tial ri g h ts ” g e n e ra lly “means thatt he err or m u sthave be en pr ej udi ci al : I tm us thave aff ect ed the out come of t he di s tr i ctcourtpr ocee di ngs . ” I d. at 734. A s w e hol d i n the t ext , i nfr a, w e concl ude thatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rtd id n o t err. 10 ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1
. W e re v ie w t he s ubs t ance of Thi el emann’ s s ent ence for abus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. W i s e, 515 F. 3d 207, 218 ( 3d C i r . 2008)

. W e gene r al l yr evi ew Speci al C ondi t i ons of Super vi s ed R el eas e forabus e of di s cr et i on. U ni t ed St at es v. Sm i th, 445 F. 3d 713, 716 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. O urr evi ew her e i s for pl ai n err orbeca us e Thi el emann di d notobj ect in the D i s tr i ct C o u rt
. U n it ed S tat es v . V o elke r, 4 8 9 F
. 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 3 n . 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ); U n it ed S tat es v . O lano , 5 0 7 U
. S

. 7 2 5 (19 9 3 ). 9 III . If a se n ten c e “ f

a lls w ith in th e b ro a d ra n g e o f p o ss ib le s ent ence s thatcan be co n s i der ed r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s , w e mustaff i r m . ” W i s e, 515 F. 3d at218. “The r ecor d m us tdemonstr at e the tr i al court gave meani ngful cons i der at i on t o the § 3553( a) fac t ors. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006)

. T hi el emann ar gues the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notcons i derhis uni que per s onal ci rcum st ances.T h iel em an n erro n eo u slyco n tend s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt 10 ac cu sed h im o f b eing the “ ri n g lead er” o f a c h a tro o m . R athe r, the D i s tr i ctC our tacc ur at el ys t at ed thatT hi el emann i ni t i at ed cont actw i th other cons um er s of chi l d pornogr aphy

. A pp. 138, 151. T h e G o v e rn m e n t’s b rie f a t p a g e 3 9 re c ites : 11 O f t he def endant ’ s ei ght as s oci at es sim u ltan e o u slyp ro se c u ted in th e d istric t co u rt, onl yC h ri s t opherPhi l l i ps w as s ent ence d t o 240 m o n th s i n c a r c e r a t i o n , a n d th a t o c c u rr e d i n t he w e e k f ol l owi ng the de fe nd a nt ’ s s e nt e nc i ng . PSR

11 T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s anal y s i s under 18 U
. S. C

. § 3553( a) w as i nform ed and adequa t e. C f. U ni t ed St at es v. L es s ner , 498 F. 3d 185, 203 -05 ( 3d C i r . 2007)

. T he courtcons i der ed the “hi s t ory and char act er i s t i cs of the defe ndant ” w hen i tfound that T h iele m a n n w a s n o t “a v ictim ” b u t “ a p re d a to r in h is o w n rig h t” des pi t e havi ng “[a s upp o rt ive fa m i l y ] [, ] a hi s t oryof bei ng gai n fu ll yempl oy ed, ” and no c r i m i nal r ecor d. A pp. 151- 52. D es pi t e the mul t i tude and c ont entof the “c hat s ” i ni t i at ed by T h iele m a n n , an d h is in d u c in g a n d e n c o u ra g in g p lea s to h is associ at es t o e n g a g e c h ild re n in th e ir re sp e c tiv e se x u a l ac tiv i t i es, th e D istric t C o u rt a ss u m e d T h iele m a n n w a s n o t p re d isp o se d to harm chi l dr en but w as, a s s t at ed, a pr edat or . A pp. 151. T he courtcons i der ed “the natur e and ci r cumst ance s of the off ens e” w hen i tfound Thi el emann “init i at ed mostof the cont actand c o n v e rs a tio n s re la te d to th e c h a rg e s .” A p p . 1 5 1
. 10 T h e D istric t C o u r t co n sid e re d “ th e n e e d to a v o id unw arr anted s ent ence di s par i t i es ” w hen i tnot ed thati tw as resp o n sible “f

o r sen tenc ing m an y o f tho se ind ividu als w h o w ere charged ” i n co n necti on w i th T hiel em ann and t oo k “those s ent ence s and thos e def

endant s ’ conducti nt o acc ounti n m aki ng s ur e that the s ent enci ngs ar e cons i s t ent
. ” A pp. 151. W i thout 1110. L ee Bl ot zerw as sen tence[d] t o 155 m onths i ncar cer at i on on M ar ch 10, 2008, fordi s tr i but i on o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . P S R 9 . T h e re m a in in g six defe ndant s w er e s ent ence d t o betw een 22 mont hs and 60 mont hs i ncar cer at ion, w i th fi ve of the defe ndant s bei ng s ent ence d forpos s es s i on of chi l d pornogr aphy , w hi ch carr i es a t en y ear m a x im u m s e n te n c e . PSR 11- 15. 12 el abor at i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatT hi e l e ma n n ’ s s ent ence “r ecogni zes the need forpuni s hm ent , det err ence , pr ot ect i on of th e p u b lic a n d re h a b ilita tio n f o r t h e d e f

e n d a n t.” A p p . 1 5 2
. Sent enci ng court s need not“di s cus s and make fi ndi ngs as t o eac h of the § 3553( a) fac t or s i f the r ecor d m akes cl earthe court t ook the fac t or s i nt o acc ounti n s ent enci ng. ” C ooper , 437 F
. 3d at32 9. W hil e the D i stri ctC ou rthere di d n ot ful l ydis cuss a ll o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs, i t is cle a r th a t th e c o u rt to o k th e m a ll in to c o n s id e ra tio n . Fur th e r mor e , th e Di s tr i c tCou r ti s s u e d a wi th i nG ui del i nes s ent ence fal l i ng int o the r ange of thos e cons i der ed r eas onabl e. See U ni t ed St at es v. H offe cker , 530 F. 3d 137, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( “A l though w e do notdeem a w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e, i ti s ‘ m or e li k elyt o be r eas onabl e than one that l i es out s i de the advi so ryg u i del i nes ran g e.’ C ooper , 437 F. 3d at 331. ”)

. T he D i s tr i ct C our tdi d notT h iele m a n n a lso c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in 12 incre asin g h is sen tenc e b ase d o n U
. S

. S

. G

. § 2 G 2
. 1 (b)(6 )(B ), w hi ch pr ovi des fora tw o- poi nts ent enci ng enhanc ement w hen the per s uas i o n , i n d u c e me n t , ent i cement , coer ci on, ors ol i ci t at i on of a mi norfors exual l y expl i ci t conducti s achi eved byus e of a comput er . H e cl ai m s thatbeca us e nea r l yal l chi l d pornogr aphy i s tr ans m i t t ed overthe i nt ernet , thi s sen tence enhanc ementfor c o m p u ter u sa g e is re d u n d a n t. T h iele m a n n o f f e rs n e ith e r f

a c ts n o r la w to su p p o rt h is a rg u m e n t. M oreove r , s ent enci ng court s m aydi s agr ee w i th the G ui del i nes bas ed on pol i cy , K i m br ough v. U ni t ed St at es, 552 U
. S. 85, 128 S. C t
. 558, 570, 575 ( 2007) , Spe ars v. U ni t ed S tate s, 1 2 9 S . C t. 84 0 , 8 4 3 (2 0 0 9 ), b u t th e D istric t C o u rt in th is case di d n ot. B ecause T hiel em ann ’s sent ence w as ot herw i se r eas onabl e, no j us t i fi cat i on ex ist s forr ever s i ng the D i s tr i ct C o u rt b e c a u s e o f

its re lia n c e o n a c u rr e n tly v a lid G u id e lin e .

13 abus e i t s di s cr et i on. 12 I V. D i s tr i ctcourt s m ayi m pos e s peci al condi t i ons of su p e rv ise d re lea se , b u t su c h c o n d iti o n s m u st b e “ re a so n a b ly rel at ed to the fa ct ors s etforth in [§ 3 55 3(a) ]” a nd m ust
“ in v o lv e [ ] n o g re a ter d e p r iv a tio n o f lib e rtyth a n is re a so n a b ly nece s s ary ” t o det er fu tur e cr i m e, pr ot ectthe publ i c, and reh ab il it ate the d ef

en d an t. 1 8 U
. S

. C

. § 3 5 8 3 (d)(1 )-( 2 ); V o elke r, 4 89 F
. 3d at14 4 (r equ i ri ng som e evidence o f a t an g ib le r el at i onsh ip b etw een the t erm s of s upervi s ed r el eas e and the o f f e n s e o r t h e h is to ry o f

th e d e f e n d a n t)

. O n appea l , T hi el emann clai m s tha t tw o sp ec ial co n d it i ons (re stric tin g h is a c c e ss to c o m p u ter s a n d se x u a llye x p li c it m at er i al ) w er e i m pos ed i n err or . H ow ever , T hi el emann re g iste re d n o o b

jec tio n to th e se c o n d iti o n s in th e D istric t C o u rt.A ban on sexuall yexp l i ci tm at eri al i nv olvi ng chil dren i s, 13 o f c o u rse , rea so n a b le , b u t u n n e c e ss a ryc o n sid e rin g c h ild pornogr aphyi s al r eadyi l l egal “an d the s t atut or i l ym andat ed c o n d iti o n s o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se re q u ire [ d e f e n d a n ts] to c o m p ly w i th” chi l d pornogr aphyl aw s . U ni t ed St at es v. V o el ker , 489 F
. 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 5 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). 14 We a c c o r d i n g l y r e v i e w f o rp l a i n e rr o r . S e e s u p r a n o t e 9
. We hol d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not err w hen i tr equi r ed T hiel em ann t o co m plyw i th these cond i t i on s. A . “Sex ual l y E x pl i ci t ” M at eri al R es t ri ct i on D istric t co u rts g e n e ra llym u s t m a k e f a c tu a l f in d in g s to j us t i fys peci al t erm s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. V oel ker , 489 F. 3d at 144. I f a cour tdoes notexpl ai n i t s r eas ons , “w e may n e v e rth e les s a f

f irm th e c o n d iti o n if w e c a n ‘a sc e rta in a n yv iab le bas i s forthe .

. . r es tr i ct i on i n the r ecor d befor e the D i s tr i ct C o u rt . . . o n o u r o w n .’” Id . (c ita tio n o m itte d ). W h ile th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t sp e c if ica llye x p lain its rat io n a le in b a rrin g T h iele m a n n f ro m se x u a llye x p licit

m at eri al s, th e re c o rd c lea rly sh o w s tha t th e D istric t C o u rt’s p u rp o se w a s to reh ab il it ate T h iel em an n , to p rotec t children , an d to d eter fu ture c ri m in a l a c tiv ity. W e h a v e h e ld th a t “D istric t C o u rt[ s] c o u ld , p e rf e c tly con sonan tw i th the C on st i tuti on , res tri ct[a de fend ant’ s] access t o s exual l yor i ent ed mat er i al s ” i f, l i ke anyotherr es tr i ct i on, the t erm had a cl ear nexus t o the goal s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. U ni t ed S tat es v . L o y , 2 3 7 F
. 3 d 2 5 1 , 2 6 7 (3 d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). H o w ev er, “ther e ar e Fi r s t A m endment i m pl i cat i ons fora ban thatext ends t o expl i ci t m at er i al i nvol vi ng adul t s . ” V oel ker , 489 F. 3d at 13 151. W hen a ba n r es tr ict s acc es s t o m at er i al pr ot ect ed bytheP ro tec ted m a ter ials in c lu d e “ n o n o b sc e n e , se x u a llye x p licit 14 m at er i al s i nvol vi ng per s ons overthe age of 17. ” U ni t ed St at es v . X -C it em en t V ideo , Inc
. , 5 1 3 U
. S

. 6 4 , 7 2 (19 9 4 ). W e re cogni ze t hata t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e r es tr i ct i ng 15 a c c e ss to a d u lt se x u a llyo rie n ted m a ter ials m u st b e “ n a rro w ly tailo re d ,” i. e ., th a t th e re stric tio n m u st res u lt in a b e n e f it to p u b li c saf

ety
. U n it ed S tat es v . L o y , 2 3 7 F
. 3 d 2 5 1 , 2 6 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). 15 Fi r s tA m endment , court s m us t b alan ce the § 3553( a) 14 cons i der at i ons “aga i ns t the s er i ous Fi r s t A m endment conc erns endemi c i n s uch a r es tr i ct i on. ” I d. I ti s evi den t tha tthe 15 D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r es tr i ct i on i n thi s cas e w oul d pr ot ectchi l dr en f rom the predat ory con du ct of T hiel em ann and thu s co u ld contr i but e t o T hi el eman n ’s r ehabi l i t at i on. A ccor di ngl y , the purpos es s erved bythe Speci al C ondi t i on faroutw eigh any C o n sti tuti o n al co n ce rns ra ised in L o yan d V o elke r. I n L oy , w e r ej ect ed a c ondi t i on w hi ch pro h ibi t ed Loy fr om pos s es s i ng pornogr aphy

. L oyhad pl eade d gui l tyt o r ece i pt of chi l d pornogr aphy

. H i s t erm s of supervi s ed r el eas e i ncl uded a pr ovi s i on pr ohi bit i ng hi m fr om pos s es s i ng “al l form s of pornogr aphy , i ncl udi ng l egal adul tporn o g r ap h y . ” Lo y , 2 3 7 F. 3d at 25 3
. W e n o ted th at restr ict ion s o n sex u al m aterial s w ere gener al l y perm i s s i bl e beca us e “al m os t any r es tr i ct i on upon s exual l yexpl i ci tm at er i al m ayw el l ai d i n r ehab il it at i on and pr ot ect i on of the publ i c. O nl y i n the except i onal cas e, w her e a b a n c o u ld a p p lyto a n ya rt f o rm th a t em p lo y s n u d ity , w ill a defe ndant ’ s exer ci s e of F ir st A m en d m en t ri g h ts be u n c o n s titu tio n a lly c ir c u m s c ri b e d o r c h ille d .” Id . a t 2 6 6
. H ow ever , aft erdi s cus s i ng the mer cur i al m eani ng of the ter m “ p o rn o g ra p h y ,” w e h e ld th a t th e p ro v isio n w a s (1 ) o v e rly b ro a d a n d v io late d th e F irst A m e n d m e n t b e c a u se it “m ig h t ap p lyT h e “ se x u a lly e x p licit” m a ter ials c o n d iti o n in V o e lk e r is 16 n e a rlyid e n tica l to th e a n a lo g o u s S p e c ial C o n d iti o n a t issu e in th is a p p e a l. 16 t o a w i de s w ath of w or k r angi ng fr om s er i ous art t o ubi qui t ous ad v ert i s i ng, ” and thati tw as ( 2) uncons t i tut i onal l yvague beca us e “i t s br eadth i s uncl ear . ” I d. at267. N o n e th e les s, w e su g g e ste d th a t “ th e C o n stitu tio n w o u ld n o t f o rb id a m o re tig h tlyd e f in e d re stric ti o n o n leg a l, ad u lt pornogr aphy , perhaps one that

. . . borr ow ed ap p l i cabl e l anguage fr om the fe der al s tatut orydefi ni t i on of chi l d pornogr aphy l ocat ed at18 U
. S. C

. § 2256( 8 ). ” I d. Sever al y ear s l at er , the D i s tr i ctC our ti n V oel kert ook heed o f o u rs ugges t i on and handed dow n j us ts uch a r eform ul at ed r es tr i ct i on r el y i ng on 18 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 6 (2 ). I n V oel ker , among ot herhol di ngs , w e over turned a life tim e b a n o n V o e lk e r’s a c c e ss to se x u a ll y e x p licit m a ter ial. V oel kerhad pl eade d gui l tyt o pos s es s i on of chi l d pornogr aphy a f ter h e w a s c a u g h t b rie f lye x p o sin g h is th re e -y e a r-o ld d a u g h ter ’ s b u tto c k s o v e r w e b c a m , an d late r a d m itt e d to dow nl oadi ng pornogr aphi c i m ages of chi l dr en. U ni t ed St at es v. V o elke r, 4 8 9 F
. 3 d 1 3 9 , 1 4 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e D istri ct C o u rt i m pos ed a l i fel ong t erm of supervi s ed re l eas e w hi ch, i nt eral i a, pr ohi bi t ed V oel ker fr om pos s es s i ng “any m at er i al s . . . depi ct i ng and / or descri bing s exu al l y exp l i ci t con du ct as defined at T itl e 18, U ni t ed St at es C ode, Sect i on 2256( 2)

. ” I d. at143 ( A nd, s ee the d ef init ion o f “se x u all y ex p li cit co n d u ct” at no te 8, su p ra). 16 V oel kerar gued thatthe condi t i on vi ol at ed t he Fi r s tA m endment a n d in v o lv e d a “ g re a ter d e p riv a tio n o f lib e rtyth a n is re a so n a b ly nece s s aryt o det erfutu re cr i m i nal conductand pr ot ectthe publ i c. ” I d. at150. W e hel d i n V oel kerthata nexus betw een the r es tr i ct i onT he chi l dren su bj ect ed t o T hi el emann’ s s exual 17 p red il ec ti o n m ayn o t, in the o p inion o f T h iel em an n ’s ps y chi atr i s t , be di r ect l yphy s i cal l yharm ed byT hi el emann, but D r . R odger s , atn o t i m e, expr es s ed her s el f aboutthe ps y c h o l o g i c a l tr a u ma e x p e r i e n c e d b yth e s e a b u s e d c h i l d r en. 17 an d t he goal s of s upervi s ed r el eas e w as abs ent
. I d. In p a rticu lar , w e e x p lain e d th a t “ n o th in g o n th [ e ] re c o rd su g g e sts thats exual l yexpl i ci t m at er i al i nvol vi ng onl yadul t s contr i but ed in a n yw a yto V o e lk e r’s o f f e n se , n o r is th e re a n y rea so n to b e liev e th a t v iew in g su c h m a ter ial w o u ld c a u se V o e lk e r to re o f f e n d .” Id . a t 1 5 1 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). W e do notr ead ourpr ece dent s as for ecl os i ng the us e of con dit i on s bann i ng access t o se x u a l l yexp l i ci tadu l tm at eri al s, part i cul ar l yw hen chi l dr en ar e vi cti m s and ar e vi ct i m i zed sex u all yb yad u lt s as a m ea n s to g rati fyad u lt d e s ir e s . R athe r, L oys t ood forthe pr opos i t i on thata bl anketban on “al l form s of p o rno g rap h y ” m ay b e co n sti tuti o n all yinf irm , b u t th at m o re l i m i t ed pr ovi s i ons “borr ow [i ng] appl i cabl e l anguage fr om the federal st atuto ryd ef

init ion o f c h il d p o rno g rap h y , ” L o y , 237 F. 3d at267, ar e perm i s s i bl e. W hat everm aybe the pa ram eter s of “pornogr aphy , ” s ee i d. at263- 65, the pr es entr ecor d tr ans cends the c h ar a c te ri za ti o n o f m ere p o rno g rap h y . H ere , the re co rd r evea l s ex pl i ci tchi l d expl oi t at i on and vi ct i m i zat i on by T hi el emann i n or dert o s at i s fyhi s s exual appet i t e foradul tm en. U n lik e in V o e lk e r, th e re is o v erw helm i ng evidenc e in th is r ecor d t o concl ude thatT hi el emann’ s expos ure to s exual m aterial , albe itinv o lving o n lyad u lts, w il l con tr ibu te t o fu ture o f f e n s e s b yT h i e l e ma n n . Th e r e p o r to f T h i e l e ma n n ’ s o wn for ens i c ps y chi atr i s t , C ar la R o d g ers, M
. D
. , r ei t er at es T h iele m a n n ’s c o m m in g lin g o f a d u lt an d c h il d se x u a l co n d u c t. T h e re p o rt in d ica tes th a t T h iele m a n n “ u se d [ p o rn o g ra p h ic im a g e s o f

c h ild re n ] in o rd e r to s e d u c e h e ter o se x u a l m a les in to a llo w in g h im to p e rf

o rm f e llatio o n th e m .” A p p . 1 1 9 . W h ile D r . R odger s concl uded thatT hi el emann’ s pr i m aryi nt er es tw as i n m en, and t hathe w as “notatr i s k of chi l d m ol es t at i on, ” the repo rt c lea rlyd e m o n stra tes T h iele m a n n ’s s e x u a l predi l ect i on s. 17C an any o n e d o ubtthatan ei ght

- y ear - ol d vi ct i m , abus ed by Phi l l i ps under the di r ect i on of Thi el emann, w i l l be psy cho l og i cal l yscarred atpresentand du ri ng her l at er y ears ? T he fol l ow i ng t erm s ap p ea r in the t extof the “c hat ” and 18 re q u ire f u rth e r cla rif

ica tio n . O n e a c h lin e o f th e “ c h a t” th e re is a tim e sta m p in d ica tin g w h e n e a c h in sta n t m e ss a g e in th e “ c h a t” w as s ent
. T he w or ds pr ece di ng eac h t i m e s t amp are T hiel em ann ’s and P hil l i ps’s res pecti ve co m pu t er usernam es. T hi el emann’ s , “suc k ing u n o w ind e,” stan d s fo r “s ucki ng y ou now i n D el aw ar e, ” a r efe r ence t o the p erf or m ance of fe l l at i o on a n o th e r m a n . T h e m e a n in g o f P h illip s ’s u s e r n a m e , “ c p

_ 2 8 7 7 ,” is n o t en tirelyc lea r, b u t “c p ” p re su m a b ly re p re se n ts h is in iti a ls ( C hr i s t opherPhi l l i ps ) , and “2877” m ay r efe r t o hi s bi r th dat e or s o m e o th e r s ig n if

ic a n t n u m b e r. Sever al i nt ernets l ang abbr evi at i ons ar e al s o us ed r epea t edl ythr oughoutthe “c hat

. ” The t erm “l ol ” i s an abbr evi at i on for“l aughi ng outl oud” or“l augh out l oud. ” The ter m “ u r” is a n a b b r e v iatio n f o r “ y o u r” o r “ y o u ’re .” T h e so le 18 M or eover , t he “c hat s ” un am bi guous l yr evea l that T h iele m a n n ’s s e x u a l ex p e rie n c e s w ith a d u lts a n d a d u lt p o rn o g ra p h yw e re in e x trica b lylin k e d to h is s e x u a l i n te r e st in ch il d ren . T h iel em an n m ad e n o sec ret o f the fa ct th at his d esire ar os e fr om adul t m en w ho ar e ar ous ed and s exual l yexci t ed by c h ild re n . S a id T h iele m a n n : “I u se d [ c h ild re n ] to g e t w h a t I w ant ed. I w ant ed t o s ee men tu rned on t o thei rpeak s o they coul d come and do s tuff t o m e. ” A pp. 149. I ndeed, everyone of T hi el emann’ s adul t s exual i nt er act i ons w i th Phi l l i ps i nvol ved c h ild re n . In o rd e r to u n d e rsta n d T h iele m a n n ’s c o n d u c t v is-à -v is chil dren an d T hielem ann ’s associ at es, T hiel em ann ’s “chats ” w ith P h ill ip s s h o u ld b e re a d

. W e r e p ro d u c e ju st o n e sm a ll se g m e n t o f

th e Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 “ c h a t,” s ick e n in g a s it is, to ill u stra te th e m a n n e r in w h ich T h iele m a n n u se d c h ild re n to o b tain h is se x u a l e n d s. T h e p o rtio n th a t w e re c o u n t sta rts w ith a s um m arypr eambl e appe ar i ng i n the P r es ent ence R eportat par agr aph 27, and cont i nues w i th the ac tual “cha t ” thr ough par ag rap h 2 9. W e expl ai n the abbr evi at i ons i n the mar gi n. 18l ett er“u” i s an abbr evi at i on for“y ou. ” T h e t erm “b4” i s an abbr evi at i on for“be fo r e. ” The com bi nat i on of a c ol on and cl os ed par enthes i s , or: ) , cr eat es a s ym bol r epr es ent i ng a “s m i l ey fac e. ” A n y others pel l i ng abnorm al i t i es w er e err or s cont ai ned in th e o rig in a l “c h a t” tra n sc rip t. 19 27
. O n June 1 1, 20 06 , P hil l i ps i nit i at ed an on l i ne ch atw i th T hi el emann, w ho as ked Phi l l i ps t o turn on hi s w eb ca m s o thatT hi el emann coul d m as turbat e w hi l e l ooki ng at Ph il li p s. Phi l l i ps s ai d hi s w eb ca m w as br oken and the two me n ma d e p l a n s t o me e ta ta M c Do n a l d ’ s b a th r o o m. T he cont i nui ng chatr efl ect s thatthe tw o m en di s cus s ed thatT hi el emann w as goi ng t o t ak e a show erdur i ng w h ich h e w o u ld tak e p ictu r e s o f h im se lf in se rtin g h is f in g e rs in to h is a n u s. A f ter a n a p p ro x im a te 3 0 m in u te i nt errupt i on i n the cha tconver s at i on, T hi el emann in d ica ted th a t h e w a s d o w n lo a d in g th o se p ictu re s o n h is com pu t er and w as preparin g t o send them t o P hil l i ps. T hi el emann soon s ai d, “nextw e j us t got t o w or k on [the vi ct i m ] , j us tki ddi ng . . . ” A ft ers ay i ng he w oul d have s ex w i th “a y ou ng y ou ng gir l ”, T hiel em ann sent t o P hil l i ps a pi ctur e of a n ap p roxi m at e 3 y earol d gi r l per form i ng fel l at i o on an adul tm al e, T hi el emann c lai m i ng thathe and [a m i nor vi ct i m T hi el emann c oul d contr ol ] w er e the per s ons depi ct ed i n the i m age. W hen as ked i f he l i ked th e p ictu re , P h ill ip s sa id , “ y e a h c o o l.” T h iele m a n n sa id [ th e m in o r vic tim T h iele m a n n c o u ld c o n tro l] n e v e r to ld any one aboutthe s exual cont act beca us e he w as “s ut t l e” [su b tl e]: 28. s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 35: 25 2006) : I am t al ki ng l i kl e 10 12 l ol cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 35: 30 2006) : l ol s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 35: 32 2006) : even y oungerl ol c p

_ 2 8 7 7 (S u n Ju n 1 1 1 2 :3 5 :3 8 2 0 0 6 ): lik e th a ts p o sa b le s ucki nguno w inde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 35: 52 2006) : m aybe one day s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 35: 53 2006) : never20 know cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 36: 00 2006) : have y ou ever su c k in g u n o w in d e (S u n Ju n 1 1 1 2 :3 6 :0 7 2 0 0 6 ): y e s to ld u t hatl ol s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 36: 12 2006) : never w i th anotherguythough s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 36: 17 2006) : butI have b ym y se lf s ucki ngunow i n d e ( Su n J u n 11 12: 36: 22 2006) : even ha ve a pi ctur e t o pr ove i tl ol cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 36: 30 2006) : y eah r i ght su c k in g u n o w in d e (S u n Ju n 1 1 1 2 :3 6 :3 8 2 0 0 6 ): u w a n t to s ee cp

_ 2 8 7 7 (S u n Ju n 1 1 1 2 :36 :43 2 0 0 6 ): su re s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 37: 00 2006) : acc pet cp_2877 (Sun Jun 11 12: 37: 24 2006) : canty ou s ar e the p ic s o I d o n ’t h a v e to d o w n lo a d it su ck ing u n o w ind e (S u n Ju n 1 1 1 2 :37 :30 2 0 0 6 ): su re cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 37: 38 2006) : ok s how s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 37: 45 2006) : : ) t ol d u cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 38: 05 2006) : o m ygod s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 38: 13 2006) : l ol cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 38: 32 2006) : w ho i s that s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 38: 37 2006) : [a mi nor v ictim T h iele m a n n c o u ld c o n tro l] su c k in g u n o w in d e (S u n Ju n 1 1 1 2 :3 8 :4 0 2 0 0 6 ): u lik le it orno cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 38: 50 2006) : s he di dntt el l on y ou s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 39: 02 2006) : no t ol d u s o m anyt i m es b4 s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 39: 04 2006) : no s u c k i n g u n o wi n d e ( S u n J u n 1 1 1 2 : 3 9 : 2 1 2 0 0 6 ) : s a me wa w ith [ th e v ictim ] if

u d o it w h ile th e re y o u n g th e yw ill for getal l abouti tand al l i n l i ke an hours o i t s al l good s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 39: 25 2006) : do u l i ke th e p i c p tu r e o f

n o ??? cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 39: 42 2006) : y eah c ool s ucki ngunow i nde (Sun Jun 11 12: 39: 47 2006) : ok good c p

_ 2 87 7 ( S u n J u n 1 1 1 2 : 4 0 : 0 1 2 0 0 6 ) : we l l [ th e v i c t i m]21 is 8 a n d sh e w ill tell s uck ingunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 40: 27 2006) : noti f u do i ti n a s ut t l e w ayl i ke i di d w i th her suckingu no w i nd e (Sun Jun 1 1 1 2:40: 31 2 0 06 ): I j ust p u lled it o u t an d sh e w e n t f o r it s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 40: 33 2006) : l ol cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 40: 38 2006) : l ol s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun J un 11 12: 40: 49 2006) : butw ho kn ow s I gu ess u kno w [t he v i ct i m ] bet t er than m e so cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 41: 10 2006) : y es and I w i s h s he w o u ld n t tell b u t sh e w ill s u c k i n g u n o wi n d e ( Su n J u n 1 1 1 2 : 4 2 : 0 0 2 0 0 6 ) : I odubt s he w i l l w hydon’ tu j us ttrys tuff l i ke w alki ng aar ound naked orcomm i ng outof the s how ernaked one dayand s ee w hats he s ay s i f s he s ay s antuh ing then st op i f not then l i ke next s i t her on url ap i n fr ontof the comput eror so o m thing an d g et ha rd su ck ing u n o w ind e (S u n Ju n 1 1 1 2 :42 :09 2 0 0 6 ): just try l i t t l e s tuff l i ke thatatfi r s tand s ee w hats he s ay s u know cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 42: 47 2006) : y eah s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 1 2: 42: 56 2006) : s o do u r eal l yl i ke thatpi ctur e > cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 43: 04 2006) : y eaa h s ucki ngunow i nde (Sun Jun 11 12: 43: 10 2006) : y ournot gonna t el l on m e r i ght cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 43: 19 2006) : no s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun J un 11 12: 43: 25 2006) : ok good su c k in g u n o w in d e (S u n Ju n 1 1 1 2 :4 3 :2 6 2 0 0 6 ): :) cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 43: 58 2006) : w el l I m w or ked up now su c k in g u n o w in d e (S u n Ju n 1 1 1 2 :4 4 :0 6 2 0 0 6 ): I a m to l ol cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 44: 26 2006) : l ol s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 44: 36 2006) : s ee i f s he w as ther e now u coul d do l i t t l e s tuff j us tt o s ee w hats he w i l l s ayI coul d w al k u thr ew i tl ol s ucki ngunow ind e ( Sun Jun 11 12: 45: 08 2006) : I have neverfucke d her s ucki ngunow i nde ( Sun Jun 11 12: 45: 17 2006) : I j us thad h e r lick m yd ick a n d a ll ca m e in h e r m o u thIn d e e d , itis c lea r th a t th e re stric tio n o n “ se x u a llye x p licit” 19 m at er i al s w oul d encompas s the act i vi t i es T hi el emann engaged i n w i th Phi l l i ps , i ncl udi ng expl i ci t w eb “cha t s , ” tr ans m i s s i on of hom emade pornogr aphy , and r eal

- t i m e s exual i nt er act i ons over we b c a m. 22 cp_2877 ( Sun Jun 11 12: 45: 27 2006) : o god don’ tdo that y o u w o u ld b e in tru b le su c k in g u n o w in d e (S u n Ju n 1 1 1 2 :4 5 :4 3 2 0 0 6 ): n a h d id it 4 t i m es al r eay d l ol 2 9
. On J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , v i a web c a m d u r i n g a n o n l i ne cha t T hi el emann w at ched Phi l l i ps m as turbat e. A pp. 59- 60. A s w e hel d i n L oy , 237 F. 3d at266 , “al m os tany re stric ti o n u p o n se x u a llye x p licit m a ter ial m a yw e ll aid in r ehabi l i t at i on and pr ot ect i on of the publ i c. ” H er e, a r eadi ng of th e “ c h a ts” re v e a ls th a t re stric tin g T h iele m a n n ’s a c c e ss to a d u lt s exual l yexpl i ci tm at er i al w i l l undoubt edl y ai d i n r ehabi l i t at i on and pr ot ect i on of the publ i c. G i ven Thi el emann’ s s exual desi r e foradul tm en w ho a b u se c h ild re n , b a n n in g T h iele m a n n f ro m a d u lt se xu al l yexp licit m ate ri al w o u ld b e a n ad d it ion al de terrent to T h iel em an n ’s se x u a l ar o u sa l an d se x u a l e x c item e n t, a s it w o u ld p re c lu d e h im from i ncludi ng chil dren i n h i s future sexual exp e ri ences. 19 O therw i s e, expos ur e t o adul ts exual l yexpl i ci tm at er i al m i ght veryw el l l ead Thi el emann t o encou rag e hi s m al e as s oci at es e ith e r t o in itia te o r t o c o n tin u e th e ira b u s e o f c h ild re n . I n i dent i fy i ng thi s nexus betw een r es tr i ct i on and goal s as r equi r ed byV oel ker , the G overnm entexpr es s ed i t s fea r s , w hi ch w e s har e. O urappr oval of the Sp ec ial C ondi t i on w hi ch p re c lu d e s T h iele m a n n f ro m v ie w in g a n d p o ss e ss in g se x u a lly expl i ci tm at er i al w as ad v ert ed t o bythe G overnm entator al a rg u m e n t. W e re c ite th e re lev a n t p o rtio n s o f th a t ar g u m e n t:23 A nd , s o th e r i s k i s th i s : Do we l e t th i s ma n - do w e l etthi s m an l ook atadul t pornogr aphyw hi ch pr es um abl y i s goi ng t o exer ci s e hi s s exual l i bi do? D o w e d o th a t k n o w in g th a t th is m a n ’s h isto ryis thr ough a l ong per i od of t i m e, w i th m anym en, the d e f e n d a n t in ten d s to g ra tifyth a t se x u a l in ter e st in a d u lt m e n w ith th e c u rre n c yw h ich is c h ild pornogr aphy

. A nd I bel i eve w hatthe D istr i ct C our tdi d i n thi s cas e, and i nd icati ng thatthe d e f e n d a n t ca n n o t h a v e th is se x u a llye x p licit conduct , i s t o guar d agai ns tthe pos s i bi l i tythatthe p u b lic h a s to b e p ro tec ted to [ e ]n su re th a t th is w ill nothappen a g ain. B eca us e thi s i s a pervas i ve pr obl em t hat this defenda nthad. I tw as notan iso late d e p iso d e . A n d , the o th e r a sp e c t o f th is is thatthe popul at i on atr i s k

. . . w hen w e s ay pr ot ect i on of the publ i c, the s peci fi c popul at i on at ri sk are the ch il d ren . S o that if the D istri ct C o u rt Ju d g e p e r m its th e d e f

e n d a n t to h a v e a c c e ss to se x u a l an d e x p licit m a ter ial, th is s e x u a l ex p licit m a ter ial a ro u se s a p a tter n in th e d e f e n d a n t to r epea tthi s behavi or . T he popul at i on atr i s k, i ndeed, ar e chi l dr en . T h at ’ s a r i s k I s ubm i tthat the C our tr eas onabl ydi d nott ake. T r. o f O ra l A rg u m e n t a t 1 4
. W e hol d thatther e is a s i gni fi cantnexus betw een re stric tin g T h iele m a n n f ro m a c c e ss to a d u lt “s e x u a llye x p licit” m at er i al and the goal s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, an d thatthe restr i ct i on her e i s notoverbr oad orvague c ons i der i ng the cont ent of the i ns t ant r ecor d. A s s uch, Fi r s tA m en d m ent i m pl i cat i ons ar e noti nvol ved. T he bal anci ng pr ot ocol r equi r ed byV oel kert i l t s heavi l yi n favorof prot ect i on of t he publ i c and c h il d re n w h e n w e c o n sid e r th is re c o rd o f “ in c iti n g to c h ild abus e. ” W e ar e ful ly sat i s fi ed thatthe veryunus ual s i tuat i on present ed in this case tho rough l ypredom i nates o v e r the F i rs t A m endmentconce r ns r ai s ed i n L oy . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ct C o u r tc o mmi t t e d n o e rr o r , l e ta l o n e p l a i n e rr o r , i n r e q u i r i ng T hi el emann’ s compl i ance w i th thi s Spe ci al C ondi t i on of24 Super vi s ed R el ea se. See U ni t ed St at es v. V oel ker , 489 F. 3d 13 9, 14 3 n
. 1 ( 3d C i r. 20 07 ) ; U ni t e d St a t e s v. O l a no , 50 7 U. S. 7 2 5 (19 9 3 ). B . C om pute r R es t ri ct i on T he D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s r at i onal e fori m pos i ng the comput er restri cti o n is self-ev iden t. E v en a c u rsory rea d ing o f th e re co rd ( and the r epr oduced s ampl e of the J une 11, 2006 “cha t , ” s upr a) and th e e v iden ce ac k n o w ledg ed b yT h iel em an n w hen he pl eade d gu i l ty , reveal that the offen ses i n thi s case evolved from the u se of a c om put erand the i nt ernet
. T h e D i s tr i ctC our tcl ear l yand pr oper l yi m pos ed t he com put er condi t i on t o det erfutur e cr i m es vi a the i nt ernetand t o pr ot ectchi l dr en. T h e iss u e is w h e th e r th is r e s trictio n w a s re a so n a b ly r el at ed t o t he § 3553( a) fac t or s and “i nvol ve[d] no gr eat er dep r i v a t i o n o f

l i b e r tyth a n i s r e a s o n a b l yn e c e s s a ry ” t o m eet thos e goal s . 18 U
. S. C

. § 3583( d) ( 1)

- ( 2)

. A n anal y s i s of tw o of ourpr i orcas es i s i ns truct i ve i n thi s r egar d. In U n it ed S tat es v . C ran d o n , 1 7 3 F
. 3 d 1 2 2 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ), the d efen dan tm eta t eenag er on the int ernetand travel ed across s t at e l i n es to t ake phot os of thei rs exual encount er . C r andon pl ead e d g u i l tyt o r e c e i p to f c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h ya n d th e Di s t r i ct C our ti m pos ed a thr ee- y earban pr ohi bi t i ng hi m fr om us i ng any “comput ernetw or k, bul l et i n boar d, I nt ernet , orexcha nge form at i nvol vi ng comput er s ” w i thoutperm i s s i on fr om the Pr obat i on O f f i c e . I d

. a t1 2 5
. W e u p h e l d th e p r o v i s i o n b e c a u s e Cr andon u se d th e in te r n e t to e x p lo it a c h ild , an d th e re stric tio n w o u ld d e te r h im f

ro m f u tu re c ri m e s a n d p ro te c t th e p u b lic

. A s not ed above, i n V oel ker , the def endantchal l enged a life lo n g b a n o n u sin g c o m p u ter s a n d th e in ter n e t co n se q u e n t to a gui l ty pl ea t o r ece i pt of chi l d pornogr aphy

. W e hel d thatthe r es tr i ct i on w as notnarr ow l yt ai l or ed bec aus e i tw as l i fel ong, cont ai ned no exc ept i ons , and i gnor ed t he “ubi qui t ous pr es ence of the i nt ernet
. ” 489 F. 3d at14 4 -46. T he t erm s of T h i e l e m a n n ’ s s u p e rv i s e d r e l e a s e a r e mo r e a n a l o g o u s t o th o s e we uphe l d i n Cr a n d o n . Se e a l s o Uni t e d St a t e s v . Pa u l , 274 F. 3d25 1 5 5 , 1 6 7 -7 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A dm it t edl y , “[c ] om put er s and I nt ernetacc es s have b ec o m e v irtuallyind ispe n sab le i n the m o d ern w o rl d

. ” V o elke r, 4 8 9 F
. 3 d at 14 8 n . 8 (cit ati o n an d q u o tat ion m ark s o m itte d ). H ow ever , T hi el emann can ow n orus e a per s onal comput eras lo n g a s it is n o t co n n e c ted to th e in ter n e t; th u s h e is a llo w e d to us e w or d pr oces s i ng pr ogr ams and otherbeni gn s oft w ar e. F u rth e r, h e m a yse e k p e rm iss io n f ro m th e P ro b a ti o n O f

f ice to us e the i nt ernetdur i ng the t erm of hi s t en- y earr es tr i ct i on, w hi ch is a fa r cryfro m the u n y iel d ing li fe ti m e re str ict ion in V o elke r. T he p aram et ers of the com pu t e r r estri ct i on i n thi s case ar e fa rl es s tr oubl i ng than t hos e i n V oel ker

. M or eover , the r es tr i ct i on i s not di s pr opor t i onat e w hen vi ew ed i n the cont extof T hi el emann’ s conduct

. T hi el emann di d m or e t han s i m pl ytr ade chi l d por nogr aphy ; he ut i l i zed int ernetcomm uni cat i on t e c h n o l o g i e s t o f

a c i l i t a t e , e n t i c e , a n d e n c o u r a ge t he r e a l

- t i me m o le s ta tio n o f

a c h ild

. T h e re str ict ion o n co m p u ter an d inte rn e t u se th ere fo re s h a r e s a n e x u s t o th e g o a l s o f d e t e rr e n c e a n d p r o t e c t i on of t he publ i c, and does noti nvol ve a gr eat erdepr i vat i on of l i bertythan is ne ce ssaryin this ca se. T h ere w as n o p lai n erro r. V. F o r th e re aso n s stated a b o v e, w e a ff irm T h iel em an n ’s s ent ence and the tw o chal lenged Spec i al C ondi t i ons of Super vi s ed R el eas e.