# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 30 26

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Ch et Lee W es t

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 Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 4, 2 01 6

Fil ed : J ul y

22 , 20 16 (Co rrec te d J ul y 22 , 20 16 )

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BEAM, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

BEAM, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ch et Lee W es t was co nv ic te d by a jury on th ree co un ts o f t a x e v as io n in

vi ol at io n of 26 U.S.C. § 72 01 an d sen te nc ed to fif ty-on e m on th s' im

pr is on m en t an d

th ree y ears ' su pe rv is ed rel eas e. He ap pe al s th e di st ri c t co ur t's ex cl us io n of cert ai n

ev id en c e a n d it s im

po si ti on of two sp eci al co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. W e

affi rm in pa rt, re ve rs e in pa rt, a nd rem an d.I. BACKGRO UND

Co m pu te r Sp eci al is t In c. ( C S I ) hi red W es t as a co m pu te r te ch ni ci an in Ju ne

20 06

. W es t su bm it te d a Fo rm W -4 to CSI cl ai m in g he was ex em pt fro m an y fed eral

in co m e ta x wit hh ol di ng s. He al so rep res en te d in writ in g to CSI th at he was ex em pt

fro m al l in co m e ta x an d wit hh ol di n g an d he in st ru ct ed CSI no t to su bm it rep or ts

co nc ern in g hi s wag es to th e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e (IRS ). As a co ns eq ue nc e, CSI

di d no t wit hh ol d fed eral in co m e ta x fro m W es t's earn in gs

. W es t de po si te d hi s in co m e

fro m CSI in to ba nk acco un ts op en ed in th e na m e of co m pa ni es he ha d form ed in an

effo rt to co nc eal hi s in co m e fro m th e IRS. In Ju n e 2 0 0 9 t h e IRS no ti fie d CSI it

wou ld be le vyin g W es t's wag es

. Learn in g th at CSI in te nd ed to co m pl y wit h th e le vy,

W es t res ig ne d hi s po si ti on an d be ga n su bc o n t r a c t i n g fo r CSI th ro ug h hi s own

co m pa ny, Po si ti ve Fl ow Sy st em s LLC (PFS ). Goi ng fo rward

, CSI m ad e pa y m en t to

PFS an d th at in co m e was di rect ed to W es t wit ho ut an y fe d e r a l i n c o m e ta x

wit hh ol di ng de d u ct ed

. As a res ul t of th es e act io ns an d ne gl ect in g to fil e fed eral

in co m e ta x ret ur ns fo r 20 07

, 20 08

, a n d 2 0 0 9

, W es t pa id no fed eral in co m e ta x fo r

th os e y ears

. W es t se t ou t h i s b e l i e f s th at hi s earn in gs fro m CSI are no t ta xa bl e 1

in co m e an d th at he is no t a ta xp ay er in se ve ral pi eces of co rres po nd en ce wit h th e IRS

an d wi th CSI.

W es t pr os el y ti zed hi s be li efs in an e-b oo k se lf- pu bl is he d an d so ld th r ou gh

Am azo n.c om

, en ti tl ed Are You a Tax pa y er? Rea ll y ? Pro ve It!

. In ad di ti on

, th e

pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t ( P S I R ) id en ti fie d W es t as "t he own er/ m an ag er of

se ve ral web si te s an d/ or on li ne bl og s whi ch p r o mo t e hi s frau du le nt ta x sc he m e an d

co nt ai n n on -ta xp ay er p ro pa ga nd a, am on g o th er i nf or m at io n." The fi rs t web si te th e

PSIR id en ti fie s is a bl og W es t m ai nt ai ns de ta il in g hi s tra va il s in th e in st an t li ti ga ti on

.

The se co nd is a w e b s i t e t ha t W es t ap pe ars to ne it he r own no r m ai nt ai n; rat he r, th e

web si te is de di cat ed to be li efs sh ared by W es t, an d on e of it s m an y pa ge s su m m ari zes

W es t h as no t fi le d a leg it im at e ret ur n o r pa id fed eral in co m e ta x s in ce 2 00 0. 1

-2

-" Th e Rem ark ab le Red em pt io n of Ch et an d Vale rie W es t's 20 01 10 40 ." The th ird 2

web si te id en ti fie d in th e PSIR is no lo ng er av ai la bl e, bu t acco rd in g to th e PSIR W es t

wor ke d fo r th e web si te as a "n on ta xp ay er ad vo cat e." In ad di ti on

, W es t as si st ed an

acq ua in ta nc e, Teres it a Ree d, in av oi di ng pa y in g fed eral in co m e ta x. He or ga ni zed

a co m pa ny, So ut he rn Sweet s LC, wit h PFS as it s reg is te red ag en t. W it h We s t ' s

as si st an ce, Ree d arra ng ed fo r he r em pl oyer to co nt ract wit h PFS, wit h th e in co m e

d i rect ed by PFS– sa ns fed eral in co m e ta x wit hh ol di ng an d le ss a fee– to So ut h e r n

Sweet s, who e m

pl oyed Re ed . W es t al so us ed PFS t o e m pl oy his so n, Br an dt W es t,

an d p ay hi m wit ho ut wit hh ol di ng tax es or r ep or ti ng th e in co m e to th e IRS

.

W es t was in di ct ed on th ree ch arg es of ta x ev as io n fo r fa i l i n g t o p ay fed eral

in co m e ta x in 20 07

, 20 08

, an d 20 0 9

. Befo re tri al

, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e

go ve rn m en t's m ot io n in li m in e, pr oh ib it in g W es t fro m of feri ng arg um en t th at

pu rp or t e d to in st ru ct th e jury on th e la w. Sp eci fic al ly, W es t was pr oh ib it ed fro m

of feri ng ev id en ce th at fed eral ta x laws are un co ns ti tu ti on al

, th at W es t is no t su bjec t

to th em

, an d th at wag es are no t in co m e su bjec t to ta xa ti on un de r th e In te rn al Rev en ue

Co de (IRC ). W es t rep res en te d hi m se lf at tri al

, an d hi s de fen se ap pe ars to ha ve be en

th at he di d no t earn ta xa bl e in co m e fro m 20 07 to 20 09

. A t t i mes

, he st at ed th is

de fen se in te rm s of a n a b s e n c e of wil lfu ln es s. In hi s op en in g st at em en t he to ld th e

jury, "I di dn 't th in k I was do in g an y th in g wro ng ." In hi s cl os in g arg um en t he st at ed

,

"No kn owl e d g e of th e le ga l du ty eq ua te s to th e im po ss ib il it y of m ak in g a wil lfu l

in t e n t

. " A nd on e of W es t's pr op os ed

, un ad op te d jury in st ru ct io ns st at ed : "Th e

de fen da nt 's at ti tu de to ward th e In te rn al Rev en ue Serv ic e or the re por tin g an d pa y m en t

of ta xe s ge ne ral ly m ay be co n s i d e r e d b y y ou in de te rm in in g hi s wil lfu ln es s wit h

res pe ct to each of t he all eg at io ns co nt ai ne d i n t he in di ct m en t."

Thi s ap pa ren tl y refe ren ces W es t's 20 01 Fo rm 10 40

, whi ch he si gn ed wit h th e 2

wor ds "u nd er d ur es s" writ te n a bo ve an d b el ow t he si gn at ur e. The IR S reject ed it

.

-3

-W es t pr es en te d hi s de fen se al m os t e n ti rel y th ro ug h cro ss -ex am in at io n of th e

go ve rn m en t's wit ne ss es

. O n e o f th es e was IRS ag en t Ri ch ard Troe st er, a so -cal le d

"s um m ary" wit ne ss

, who di sc us se d ap p l i c at io n of th e ta x co de ge ne ral ly to th e

pa rti cu la r fact s of W es t's cas e. See Uni te d St at es v. Ell efs en

, 65 5 F.3 d 76 9, 78 0 (8 th

Ci r. 20 11 ) (d es cri bi ng ro le of su m m ary wit ne ss in t a x e v a s io n cas e). W es t cro ss

ex am in ed Troe st er an d at te m pt ed to im pe ach hi s kn owl ed ge of th e IRC an d co nt rad ic t

hi s te st im on y by refe ren ci ng th e IRC's de fin it io n of "Un it ed St at es " an d "em pl oyee."

The di st ric t co ur t su st ai ne d th e go ve rn m en t's ob jecti on to each of th es e li ne s o f

qu es ti on in g an d di d no t pe rm it W es t to reci te th e IRC's de fin it io ns of "Un it ed St at es ."

Dur in g hi s cas e-i n- ch ie f, W es t cal le d hi s s o n B r a n dt

, who ha d as si st ed W es t in

writ in g hi s e-b oo k

. Whe n W es t at te m pt ed to en te r th e e-b oo k in to ev id en ce, th e

di st ric t co ur t s us ta in ed th e g ov ern m en t's ob jecti on on rel ev an ce.

The jury fo un d W es t gu il ty on a ll co un ts an d t he di st ric t cou rt sen te nc ed hi m

to fif ty-on e m on th s' im

pr is on m en t an d th ree y ears ' su pe rv is ed rel eas e. At th e req ue st

of th e IRS th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d, am on g ot he rs

, t h e f o l lo win g two sp eci al

co nd it io ns of s up erv is ed rel eas e:

13

. The de fen da nt sh al l no t en ga ge in th e crea ti on of or es ta bl is h an y

ne w web si te s, an d he is req ui red to rem ov e an y web si te s, pa st or

pr es en t, wh ic h a re cu rren tl y act iv e.

14

. The de fe nd an t is pr oh ib it ed fro m us in g or po ss es si ng an y

co m pu te r(s ) (in cl ud in g an y ha n dh el d co m pu ti ng de vi ce, an y

el ect ro ni c de vi ce cap ab le of co nn ect in g to an y on li ne se rv ic e, or

an y da ta st or ag e m ed ia ) wit ho ut th e pr io r writ te n ap pr ov al of th e

U.S. Pro b a ti on Offi cer. Thi s in cl ud es

, bu t is no t li m it ed to

,

co m pu te rs at pu bl ic li br ari es

, In te rn et cafe s, o r th e de fen da nt 's

pl ace of em

pl oym en t or ed uc at io n. Fu rth erm or e, he sh al l co ns en t

to th e se arch of hi s co m pu te r fo r co nt en t rel at ed to cri m in al

act iv it y , at t he req ue st of h is pro ba ti on off ic er.

-4

-W es t o bjec te d t o t he se sp eci al co nd it io ns

.

W es t ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ci ng

, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t's

ev id en ti ary ru li ng s d ep riv ed hi m of hi s rig ht to pre se nt a co m pl et e d efen se an d t ha t

th e ab ov e-q uo te d sp eci al co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e were an ab us e of di sc ret io n

an d v io la te d h is Fir st Am en dm en t ri gh ts

.

II

. DISCUSS IO N

A. Ev id enti ar y Rul in gs

W es t fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t's ev id en ti ary ru li ng s de pr iv ed hi m of hi s

co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed rig ht to pr es en t a co m pl et e de fen se

. W e rev ie w ev id en ti ary

ru li ng s fo r an a b us e of di sc ret io n, bu t ou r rev ie w is de no vo whe n th e ch al le ng e

im pl ic at es a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht

. Uni te d St at es v. W hi te

, 55 7 F.3 d 85 5, 85 7 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ). Eve n whe re an ev id en ti ary ru li n g i s a n ab us e of di sc ret io n or vi ol at es a

co ns ti tu ti on al pr os cri pt io n, ho wev er, we wil l no t rev ers e un le ss th e erro r is m or e th an

ha rm le ss in th at it affe ct ed a su bs ta nt ia l rig ht or ha d m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on

th e ve rd ic t. Id . a t 85 7

- 5 8

. We h a v e reco gn iz ed th e rig ht of a cri m in al de fen da nt to

pr es en t a co m

pl et e de fen se

, gr ou nd ed in ei th er th e Si xt h or Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts

,

wit h th e cav eat th at it m ay be li m it ed by ot he r le gi ti m at e in te res ts of cri m in al tri al s,

su ch as ex cl ud in g in co m pe te nt

, irr el ev an t, o r p r i v i l eg ed te st im on y

. E.g., Uni te d

St at es v. Pe tt ers , 66 3 F .3d 37 5, 3 81 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) . "To t ha t en d, t he 'Co ns ti tu ti on

le av es to th e jud ge s who m us t m ak e th es e de ci si on s wid e la ti tu de to ex cl ud e ev id en ce

th at is rep et it iv e

. . . , on ly m arg in al ly rel ev an t or po se s an un du e ris k of ha ras sm en t,

pr ejud ic e, [o r] co nf

us io n of the is su es .'" Id

. (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Cran e

v. Ky ., 47 6 U.S. 6 83 , 68 9- 90 (19 86 )).

-5

-Tit le 26 U.S.C. § 72 01 pr ov id es : "An y pe rs on who wil lfu ll y at te m pt s in an y

man n e r t o e v ad e or de feat an y ta x im po se d by th is ti tl e or th e pa y m en t th ereo f

sh al l

. . . be gu il ty of a fel on y

. . . ." The req ui rem en t th at su ch an at te m pt be "wi ll fu l"

"re qu ire s th e Gov ern m en t to pr ov e th at th e la w im po se d a du ty on th e de fen da nt

, th at

th e de fen da nt kn ew of th is du ty, an d th at he vo lu nt ari ly an d in te nt io na ll y vi ol at ed th at

du ty." C h e e k v. Uni te d St at es

, 49 8 U.S. 19 2, 20 1 (1 99 1)

. W es t co nt en ds th at by

pr ev en ti ng hi m fro m read in g pr ov is io ns of th e t a x c o d e to ag en t Troe st er du rin g

cro ss -ex am in at io n an d by ex cl ud in g hi s e-b oo k, th e di st ric t co ur t pr ev en te d hi m fro m

pr es en ti ng as a de fen se hi s m is ta ke n be li efs th at he di d no t earn ta xa bl e in co m e an d

is no t a t ax pa y er.

Ch eek sq ua rel y ad dr es se d th e m is ta ke n- be li ef de fen se to a ch arg ed vi ol at io n

of § 72 01

, ho ld in g th at a de fen da nt co ul d de feat th e wil lfu ln es s elem en t by pr ov in g

to th e jury th at he ha d a su bjec ti ve

, go od -fai th be li ef th at th e rel ev an t pr ov is io n of th e

ta x la ws di d n o t i m

po se ta x li ab il it y on hi m

. "[O]ne can no t be aware th at th e la w

im po se s a du ty up on hi m an d y et be ig no ran t of it

, m is un de rs ta nd th e la w, or be li ev e

th at th e du ty do es no t ex is t." Id

. at 20 2. Rel ev an t he re, th e Co ur t in Ch eek ob se rv ed :

Of co ur se

, in de ci di ng whe th er to cred it Ch eek 's go od -fai th be li ef cl ai m

,

t h e jury wou ld be free to co ns id er an y ad m is si bl e ev id en ce fro m an y

so ur ce sh owi ng th at Ch eek was aware of hi s du ty to fil e a ret ur n an d to

tre at wag es as in co m e, in cl ud in g ev id en ce sh owi ng hi s aware ne ss of th e

rel ev an t p ro vi si on s o f th e Co de or r eg ul at io ns

. . . .

Id

. The Co ur t al so no te d th at "fo rb id di ng th e ju r y t o c o n si de r ev id en ce th at m ig ht

ne ga te wil lfu ln es s wou ld rai se a se rio us qu es ti on un de r th e Si xt h Am en dm en t's jury

tri al pro vi si on ." Id . a t 20 3. The Co ur t re co gn iz ed , ho wev er, t ha t a m is ta ke n- be li ef

de fen se do es no t en co m

pa s s s it ua ti on s whe re th e de fen da nt

, rat he r th an ha vi ng a

ge nu in e m is un de rs ta nd in g of th e la w, kn ows th e la w bu t m erel y di sa gr ees wit h it

. Id

.

at 20 2 n.8

. Fu rth er, th e Co ur t di st in gu is he d th e m is ta ke n

- b e l i e f de fen se fro m an

-6

-arg um en t th at a rel ev an t pr ov i s i o n is in va li d, whi ch arg um en t wou ld "re ve al fu ll

kn owl ed ge of t he pro vi si on s at is su e." Id . at 2 05

.

W e rece nt ly ad dr es se d an arg um en t si m il ar to W es t's in Uni te d St at es v.

Giam ba lv o, 81 0 F.3 d 10 86 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ). The re, Giam ba lv o was ch arg ed wit h

fil in g fal se ta x ret ur ns cl ai m in g z e r o t a x a bl e in co m e, an d he arg ue d th at he ha d a

m is ta ke n be li ef th at he di d no t earn ta xa bl e in co m e. Id

. at 10 90 -9 1, 10 93

. Giam ba lv o

wis he d to p r e s e n t t e st im on y by an IRS em pl oyee th at aft er th e pu bl ic at io n of a

pa rti cu la r bo ok up on whi ch Giam ba lv o ha d rel ie d in fo rm in g hi s be li ef th at he di d no t

earn ta xa bl e in co m e, th e ag en t ha d re c e i v e d z ero -in co m e ret ur ns si m il ar to

Giam ba lv o's . Id. at 10 93 . W e n ot ed th at

a c o ur t "o rd in ari ly can no t ex cl ud e ev id en ce re le va nt to th e ju r y's

de te rm in at io n of wh a t a de fen da nt th ou gh t th e la w wa s in § 72 0[ 6] [ 3 ]

cas es be cau se wil lfu ln es s is an el em en t of th e of fen se ." Th e r e f

o r e,

"s ta tu te s or case la w up on whi ch th e de fen da nt cl ai m s to ha ve ac tu al ly

re li ed are a d mi s s ib le to di sp ro ve th at el em en t if th e de fen da nt la y s a

pr op er fo un da ti on whi ch de m on st rat es su ch rel ia nc e."

Id

. at 10 95 (fi rs t al te rat io n in or ig in a l ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

P o w e l l

, 9 5 5 F.2 d 12 06

, 12 14 (9 th Ci r. 19 92 )). W e co nc lu de d th at th e IRS ag en t's

te st im on y wou ld no t be rel ev an t t o e st ab li sh in g Gi am ba lv o's su bjec ti ve rel ia nc e o n

th e b oo k a nd affi rm ed th e d is tri ct co ur t's ex cl us io n o f th at tes ti m on y . Id.

Ch eek an d Giam

ba lv o co m

pe l th e co nc lu si on th at W es t was en ti tl ed to pr es en t

pr ov is io ns of th e IRC an d ot he r m at eri al to th e jury for t he pu rp os e o f su pp or ti ng a

m is ta ke n- be li ef de fen se , b ut on ly aft er he l a i d f ou nd at io n th at he rel ie d up on th os e

Bo th § 7 20 1 a nd § 7 20 6 c on ta in a wil lfu ln es s el em en t. 3

-7

-pr ov is io ns in fo rm in g hi s be li efs

. It is no t en ti rel y cl ear whe th er W es t ob jects to th e 4

di st ric t co ur t's or de r gr an ti ng th e go ve rn m en t's m ot io n in li m in e, bu t we th in k th at th e

or de r was ap pr op ria te

. It ad he res to Ch eek 's di st in ct io n be twee n a de fen se ba se d on

t h e a p pl ic ab il it y of a ta x la w an d on e ba se d on it s va li di ty. The or de r pr oh ib i t e d

arg um en t on th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of ta x la ws, no t on W es t's m is ta ke n be li ef as to th ei r

ap pl ic ab il it y

. It al so pr oh ib it ed arg ume n t th at W es t is no t su bjec t to Uni te d St at es

la w an d th a t h i s earn in gs fro m CSI were no t ta xa bl e in co m e. Thi s, to o, was

pe rm is si bl e. Alt ho ug h W es t m ay arg ue th at hi s m is un de rs ta n d i n g of th e la w was

,

su bjec ti ve ly, fo rm ed in go od fai th

, th is is in co nt rad is ti nc ti on to an arg um en t th at th e

la w do es no t, in act ua li ty, ap pl y to W es t, an arg um en t th at ris ks co nf us in g t h e ju ry

an d wh ic h i nv ad es th e d is tri ct co ur t's res po ns ib il it y to in st ru ct th e jury on th e la w.

W es t sp eci fic al ly ob

jects to th e di st ric t co ur t's ru li ng th at he co ul d no t read IRC

pr ov is io ns to Age nt Tro e s t e r du rin g cro ss -ex am in at io n an d th e di st ric t co ur t's

ex cl us io n of W es t's bo ok fro m ev id en ce. The pr ob le m wit h W es t's ob jecti on to th e 5

fo rm er ru li ng is th at he di d no t at te m pt to pr es en t th os e pr ov is io ns fo r th e pu rp os e of

pr es en ti ng a m is ta ke n- be li ef de fen se

. The tra ns cri pt rev eal s th at W es t in te nd ed to

co nt rad ic t Troe st er's te st im on y th at th e IRC ap pl ie d to W es t an d, pe rh ap s, to im pe ach

Troe st er's cred ib il it y by de m on st rat in g hi s la ck of kn owl ed ge of th e IRC. Perm it ti ng

W es t to read th e pr ov is io ns to Troe st er fo r th os e p u r p o se s wou ld ha ve ris ke d juro r

co nf us io n a n d wou ld no t ha ve fu rth ered W es t's rig ht to pr es en t a m is ta ke n- be li ef

Th e ad m is si bi li ty of ev id en ce fo r th is pu rp os e is al so il lu st rat ed in U n i t e d 4

S ta te d v. Gus ta fs on

, 52 8 F.3 d 58 7, 59 1- 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ), an d Uni te d St at e s v

. W il li s, 2 77 F.3d 10 26 , 10 33 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2)

.

The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at W es t fai le d to m ak e of fers of pr oo f an d so fai le d 5

to pr es erv e hi s ob

jecti on s, warra nt in g pl ai n- erro r rev ie w. Fed

. R. Evi d. 10 3( a)(2 ).

Eve n were we to de cl in e to gi ve W es t, a pr o se de fen da nt

, th e be ne fit of th e do ub t as

to whe th er th e "s ub st an ce [o f th e ex cl ud ed ev id en ce] was ap pa ren t fro m th e co nt ex t,"

id ., th is arg um en t i s o f no co ns eq ue nc e as it do es no t al te r ou r co nc lu si on

.

-8

-de fen se

. W es t ' s e-b oo k, al th ou gh it m ay ha ve pr es en te d W es t's be li efs

, co ul d no t

lo gi cal ly com

pr is e m at eri al up on whi ch W es t rel ie d in fo rm in g th e v ery op in io ns it

se ts fo rth an d s o was no t rel ev an t to a m is ta ke n- be li ef de fen se

. Fu rth er, hi s

qu es ti on in g was di rect ed at th e "re li ab il it y of t he th es is of t he bo ok ," in di cat in g h is

pu rp os e was to sh ow th at he was no t, in fact

, a ta xp ay er. Bec au se th e rig ht to pr es en t

a co m pl et e de fen se do es no t en ti tl e a de fen da nt to pr es en t th e jury wit h ev id en ce th at

is ei th er irr el ev an t o r is pro pe rly excl ud ed un de r Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3, we

affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t's ev id en ti ary ru li ng s.

B. Spec ia l Co ndi tio ns of S uper vi se d Rel ea se

W es t al so ob

jects to two of th e di st ric t co ur t's sp eci al co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e. W e ge ne ral ly de fer to a di st ric t co ur t ' s b r o ad di sc ret io n to im po se sp eci al

co nd it io ns if th ey co m

po rt wit h th e st ric tu res of 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d ) th at th e

co nd it io n is : (1 ) reas on ab ly rel at ed to th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se

, th e

hi st or y an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt

, ad eq ua te de te rren ce, pub li c p ro te ct io n,

an d th e ne ed s of th e de fen da nt ; (2 ) in vo lv es no gr eat er de pr iv a t i o n o f l i b ert y th an

reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry fo r th e se n t e n c i n g pu rp os es of ad eq ua te de te rren ce, pu bl ic

pr ot ect io n, an d th e ne ed s of th e de fen da nt ; an d (3 ) is co ns is te nt wit h ap pl ic ab le po li cy

st at em en ts by th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on

. Fu rth er, sp eci al co nd it io ns

of su pe rv is ed rel eas e m

us t be su pp or te d by pa rti cu la riz ed f i n d i n g s sp eci fic to th e

de fen da nt

, rat he r th an be cat eg or ic al ly ap pl ie d to al l th os e fo un d gu il ty of co m m it ti ng

th at of fen se

. Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 45 2 F.3 d 99 1, 99 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). W e rev ie w

sp eci al co nd it io ns fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n; ho wev er, "[w]her e a co nd it io n of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e wou ld im po se 'swee pi ng res tri ct io ns on im po rta nt co ns ti tu ti on al

rig ht s,' we rev ie w th e co nd it io n m or e cl os el y ." Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Cru m e,

42 2 F .3d 72 8, 7 33 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) ). W e ad dr es s ea ch co nd it io n i n t ur n.

-9

-1. Spec ia l Co ndi tio n # 13

Sp eci al Co nd it io n #1 3 req ui res th at W es t refr ai n fro m crea ti ng or es ta bl is hi ng

an y ne w web si te s an d th at he rem ov e an y of hi s cu rren tl y ex is ti ng web si te s. W es t

a r g u e s th at th is co nd it io n de pr iv es hi m of a gr eat er am ou nt of li be rty th an t h a t

ne ces sa ry fo r th e pu rp os es id en ti f i e d in § 35 83 (d ). W hi le he gr an ts th at "[i ]f

Co nd it io n #1 3 pr oh ib it ed on ly web si te s rel at ed to in co m e ta x, su ch a co nd it io n m ig ht

be pe rm is si bl e," he po in ts ou t th at th e co nd it io n " p r o h i b it s W es t fro m crea ti ng or

m ai nt ai ni ng an

y web si te

, no m at te r th e t o p i c." Fu rth er, W es t ch al le ng es Sp eci al

Co nd it io n #1 3 as ov erl y res tri ct iv e of hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s. The go ve rn m en t

res po nd s th at th e co nd it io n i s n o t ov erb ro ad be cau se it m eet s § 35 83 (d )'s

req ui rem en ts

. Fu rth er, the go ve rn m en t argu es th at W es t's pr om ot io n of m et ho ds of

av oi di ng ta xe s on th e In te rn et is co m m erci al sp eech

, an d th us hi s "u se of web si te s an d

hi s eBo ok to pr om ot e hi s frau du le nt ta x s c h e me i s no t pr ot ect ed by th e Fi rs t

Am en dm en t."

"A sp eci al co nd it ion of su pe rv is ed rel eas e is on ly un co ns ti tu ti on al ly ov erb ro ad

if it s ov erb read th is real an d su bs ta nt ia l in rel at io ns hi p to it s pl ai nl y le gi ti m at e

swe ep ." Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on

, 65 3 F.3 d 6 88

, 69 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). W e ha ve

ad dr es se d th e is su e of sp eci al co nd i t i o n s i nf rin gi ng on Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s

la rg el y in th e co nt ex t of cri m in al se x of fen se s, up ho ld in g res tri ct io ns on de fen da nt s'

acce ss to po rn og rap hi c m at eri al s, e.g

. Uni te d St at es v. Deat he rag e, 68 2 F.3 d 75 5, 76 4

(8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Tho m

ps on

, 65 3 F.3 d at 69 5; Uni te d St at es v. Bo st on

, 49 4 F.3 d 66 0,

66 7- 68 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ), bu t reject in g as ov erb ro ad res tri ct io ns on acce ss in g m at eri al s

th a t co nt ai n "n ud it y ," th at "al lu de " to se xu al act iv it y

, or th at pr es en t "s ex ua ll y

aro us in g" co nt en t, e.g

., Uni te d St at es v. Kell y

, 62 5 F.3 d 51 6, 52 0- 22 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 );

Uni te d Stat es v. Si m on s, 61 4 F.3 d 47 5, 48 3 (8t h Cir. 20 10 ) (p la in -err or rev ie w). In

an ot he r ve in of ch al le ng ed sp eci al co nd it io ns

, we ha ve up he ld ba ns on In te rn et acce ss

(b ut all owi ng for acce ss aft er rece iv in g pe rm is si on fro m a pr ob at io n of fic er) wh ere

-1 0-a de fen da nt us ed th e In te rn et to pr od uc e or di st rib ut e ch il d po rn og rap hy or to arra ng e

an il li ci t se xu al en co un te r, e.g

., Uni te d St at es v. Ben de r, 56 6 F.3 d 74 8, 75 1- 52 (8 th

Ci r. 20 09 ); Bo st on

, 49 4 F.3 d at 66 8; Uni te d Stat es v. Ris ti ne

, 33 5 F.3d 69 2, 69 5- 96

(8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (p la in -err or rev ie w); Uni te d St at es v. Fi el ds

, 32 4 F.3 d 10 25

, 10 27 -2 8

(8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (p l a i n

- e r r o r rev ie w), bu t no t whe re th e de fen da nt on ly us ed th e

In te rn et to acce ss an d po ss es s li m it ed am ou nt s of ch il d po r no gr ap hy, e.g

., Uni te d

St at es v. W ie do wer, 63 4 F.3 d 49 0, 49 4- 96 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Uni te d St at es v. Mar k, 42 5

F.3 d 50 5, 50 9- 10 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (n ot in g th at an Int ern et ba n in su ch ci rcu m st an ces

m ay b e ap pr op ria te whe re de fen da nt is "i nc or rig ib le " an d whe re di st ric t co ur t ha s

tho ro ughl y co nsi de red an d reject ed as in effe ct iv e al te rn at iv e restr ic tio ns) ; Cr um e, 422

F.3 d at 73 3 ("We are no t co nv in ced th at a br oa d ba n fro m su ch an im po rta nt m ed iu m

of co m m un ic at io n, co m

m erce

, an d in fo rm at io n- ga th eri ng is ne ces sa ry gi ve n th e

ab se n c e of ev id en ce de m on st rat in g m or e se rio us ab us es of co m pu te rs or th e

In te rn et ."). Bu t se e Uni te d St at es v. Mo rai s, 6 7 0 F

. 3 d 8 89

, 89 6- 97 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )

(u ph ol di ng Int ern et ba n fo r po ss es si on of c hi ld po rn og rap hy whe re its qu an ti ty and

co nt en t were "eg reg io us "); Deat he rag e, 68 2 F.3 d at 76 4 (s am e whe re In te rn et acce ss

was "ce nt ral to [d efen da nt 's] ch il d po rn og rap hy of fen se " an d whe re de fen da nt ha d

vi ol at ed a si m il ar co nd it io n of pr et ria l rel eas e). Part ic ul arl y rel ev an t, we th in k, is ou r

op in io n in Ben de r. Ben de r was co nv ic te d of tra ve li ng wit h in te nt to en ga ge in il li ci t

se xu al co nd uc t, an d whi le on su pe rv is ed rel eas e was cau gh t acce ss in g po rn og rap hi c

im ag es on a co m

pu te r in a pu bl ic li br ary. 56 6 F.3 d at 75 0. At th e rev oc at io n he ari ng

,

th e di st ric t co ur t im

po se d a spe ci al co ndi tio n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e pr oh ib it in g Ben de r

fro m en te rin g an

y li br ary, pu bl ic or pr iv at e. Id

. at 75 0- 51

. W e st ru c k d o w n t h at

co nd it io n as ov er b r o a d

, no ti ng th at "[a ]lth ou gh Ben de r im pr op erl y us ed li br ary

res ou rces , li br ari es are es se nt ia l fo r res earc h a nd lea rn in g." Id. at 75 3.

Alt ho ug h no ne of th e fo reg oi ng pr eced en t is fact ua ll y on p o i n t , we th in k th e

pr in ci pl es ou r cas es el uc id at e de m an d gr eat er pr eci si on fro m Sp eci al Co nd it io n #1 3.

Co ns id eri ng th e fin di ng s se t ou t in th e PSIR th at W es t as si st ed ot he rs in vi ol at in g th e

-1 1-ta x la ws, so ld m at eri al on li ne pro m ot in g h is id eas , and m ai nt ai ne d a nd pa rti ci pa te d

in web si te s rel at in g to ta x- ev as io n sc he m es

, th ere m ay be a pl ai nl y le gi ti m at e swe ep

of res tri ct io ns th e di st ric t co ur t co u l d h a v e p l aced on W es t's ab il it y to pr om ot e hi s

id eas th ro ug h th e I n t e r n et

. Bu t th e di st ric t co ur t's sp eci al co nd it io n pr oh ib it s W es t

fro m crea ti ng an d m ai nt ai ni ng an y web si te irr es pe ct iv e of it s co nt en t. Eve n gr an ti ng

th e go ve rn m en t's qu es ti on ab le po si ti on th at W es t was on ly en ga ge d in co m m erci al

sp eech

, Sp eci al Co nd it io n #1 3 wou ld ap pl y t o no nc om m erci al sp eech as well

.

P e r ha ps su ch a res tri ct io n co ul d be up he ld if th e co nd uc t at is su e was es pe ci a l l y

eg reg io us

, as in Mo rai s, o r if it was cen tra l to W es t's of fen se

, as in Deat he rag e. Cf.

Uni te d St at es v. Kell er, 36 6 F. App 'x 36 2 (3 d Ci r. 20 10 ) (u ph ol di ng sp eci al co nd it io n

on co nv ic ti on fo r m ai l frau d ba nn in g crea ti on or m ai nt en an ce of "b us in es s" web si te s

whe re de fen da nt 's cri m e in vo lv ed s h i p men t of pr od uc ts so ld th ro ug h se ve ral of hi s

In te rn et ret ai l web si te s)

. Bu t th is cas e is m or e an al og ou s to Ben de r an d Cru m e.

Alt ho ug h W es t m is us ed hi s acce ss to th e In te rn et

, web si te s p r e s e n t an im po rta nt

m od e of c o mm

un ic at iv e an d co m

m erci al in te rco ur se in ou r so ci et y th ro ug h whi ch

W es t can ex erci se hi s ri gh t t o s pe ak . Becau se "[t ]his co ur t i s 'p art ic ul arl y rel uc ta nt

to up ho ld swe ep in g res tri ct io ns on im po rta nt co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s,'

. . . su ch [ab so lut e]

ba ns are di sf

av or ed ." Ben de r, 56 6 F.3 d at 75 3 (q uo ti ng Cru m e, 42 2 F.3 d at 73 3)

. W e

ag ree wit h W es t th at Sp eci al Co nd it io n #1 3 de pr iv es hi m of a gr eat er am ou nt of

li be rty th an ne ces sa ry to ach ie ve th e se nt en ci ng p u r p o se s id en ti fie d in § 35 83 (d ).

Giv en (1 ) th e li m it le ss am ou nt of to pi cs an d pu rp os es for whi ch a web si te m ig ht be

cre a t e d o r m ai nt ai ne d an d th e co m pa rat iv el y na rro w am

bi t of su bjec t m at te r W es t

m ay be pr oh ib it ed fro m pu bl is hi ng , ( 2) th e li m it ed ex te nt to whi ch W es t c r eat ed or

m ai nt ai n e d w eb si te s in or de r to pr om ot e ta x av oi da nc e, an d (3 ) th e at te nu at ed

rel at io ns hi p b et ween th e web si te s refere nc ed in th e PSIR an d t he off en se for whi ch

W es t was co nv ic te d, we h ol d t ha t Sp eci al Co nd it io n # 13 is ov erl y bro ad

.

-1 2-2. Spec ia l Co ndi tio n # 14

W es t al so ch al le ng es Sp eci al Co nd it io n #1 4, whi ch ba ns hi m fro m us in g or

po ss es si ng co m

pu ti ng de vi ces wit ho ut pr io r writ te n ap pr ov al fr om a pr ob at io n of fic er

an d re qu ire s h im

to co ns en t t o s earc he s o f an y co m pu te r he is pe rm it te d t o p os se ss

.

W es t ag ai n arg ue s th is co nd it io n de pr iv es hi m of a gr eat er a mo u n t o f l i be rty th an

ne ces sa ry , po in ti ng ou t t ha t h e ear ns hi s l iv in g wo rk in g wi th co m pu te rs

. W es t als o

as se rts th at th e di st ric t "co ur t's co nc lu si on th at W es t's co m pu te r us e in ci te d cri m in al

act iv it y la ck s th e in di vi du al iz ed fact ua l supp or t requ ire d to up ho ld a sp eci al co nd it io n

o f s up erv is ed rel eas e." The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at th is res tri ct io n is ne ces s a r y t o

m on it or W es t an d res tri ct hi s ab il it y to us e co m pu te rs to co m

m it an d en co ur ag e ot he rs

to co m m it cri m in al act iv it y

.

Aga in

, ou r rel ev an t pr eced en t in th is area co m es fro m c a s e s in vo lv in g

co nv ic ti on s fo r cri m in al se x of fen se s. In th is co nt ex t, we h a v e g e n e r al ly up he ld

co m pu te r res tri ct io ns whe re a de fen da nt us ed co m pu te rs to dis trib ut e or pr od uc e ch il d

po rn og rap hy, Uni te d St at es v. Goe tt sc h, 81 2 F.3 d 11 69

, 11 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ), st or ed

ch il d po rn og rap hy in a read il y tra ns fera bl e m ed iu m

, Uni te d St at es v. Muh le nb ru ch

,

68 2 F.3 d 10 96

, 11 05 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), an d ge ne ral ly di d m or e th an "m er e l y p o s s e s s

c h i l d p o r n o gr ap hy," Bo st on

, 49 4 F.3 d at 66 8. Fu rth er, we ha ve va cat ed su ch

res tri ct io ns if th ere is "n ot hi ng in th e reco rd to su gg es t t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t

co nd uc te d a n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n q u i r y i n t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f th e

co m pu te r . . . rest ric ti on []." W ie do wer, 6 34 F.3d at 4 95

.

Nei th er th e PSIR no r th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng tra ns cri pt co nt ai n an y

in di vi du al iz ed fin di ng s th at W es t us ed a co m pu te r to pr om ot e ta x ev as io n sc he m es

.

Thi s li ke ly can be in ferr ed fro m hi s In te rn et a c t i v i t y

. The us e of a co m pu te r co ul d

al so arg ua bl y be in ferr ed fro m W es t's two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r so ph is ti cat ed m ean s

in th e crea ti on of m

ul ti pl e acco un ts fo r di ffer en t bu si ne ss es an d co m pl ex tra ns act io ns

-1 3-m ad e be twee n th em in an effo rt t o c on ceal in co m e. Bu t if thes e act iv it ie s com pr is e

th e fu ll ex te nt of fin di ng s jus ti fy in g th e ba n on co m pu te rs

, th en cl earl y th e res tri ct io n

is br oa de r th an ne ces sa ry

, as co mp u t e r s m ay be us ed in m y ria d way s no t rel at ed to

pr om ot in g ta x ev as io n on li ne or co nc eal in g fu nd s. W e are co nv i n c e d t h e di st ric t

co ur t co ul d ha ve craf

te d a na rro wer res tri ct io n th at wou ld ha ve ad eq ua te ly ach ie ve d

th e se nt en ci ng pu rp os es of de te rren ce an d pu bl ic pr ot ect io n wit ho ut hi nd eri ng W es t

in co nt in ui ng hi s care er as a co m pu te r t e c h n i c i a n

. One of th e se nt en ci ng pu rp os es

id en ti fie d in § 35 83 (d ) is th e ne ed of th e de fen da nt to be pr ov id ed vo cat io na l tra in in g,

de m on st rat in g a de te rmi na ti on th at sp eci al co nd it io ns no t ne ed le ss ly in te rfer e wit h

th e de fen da nt 's ab il it y to rei nt eg rat e in to so ci et y

. W e ho ld th at th e ba n on co m pu te r

res tri ct io ns ap pe ars to de pr iv e W es t of a gr eat er am ou nt of li be rty th an ne ces sa ry to

ach ie ve § 3 58 3( d) 's s en te nc in g p ur po se s.

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t's ev id en ti ary ru li ng s bu t

va cat e th e ch al le ng ed sp eci al co nd it io ns of s u pe rv is ed rel eas e an d rem an d fo r

res en te nc in g c on si st en t wi th th is op in io n.

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

-1 4-