## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 1153 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C HRISTO PH ER M USSO, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:05- cr-30101

— David R. H ern don, Chief Judge.

A RG UE D J UNE 6, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 1, 2011

Befo re K ANN E , E VANS, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . E V A NS, Cir cu i tJudg e . In 200 5, Chri sto pher M usso ple d gui l ty to 11 counts ofp os se ss i on o fchi l d pornog ra phy, i n vi ol ati on o f18 U

. S. C. § 2 252( a) ( 4) ( B). H e s ub se q u en tl y was s en te nc ed to a term o f3 7 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t an d three yea rs of su p e r v ised rel ease. Fi ve years later, th e govern m en t fi led a p etition to revo k e M us so’s sup erv i s e d r e l e a s e , a l l e g i ng tha t he ha d c o mm i t t e d thr e e vi ol a-2 N o. 11

- 1153

At or al ar g u me n t, we que s t i one d whethe r M us s o’ s adm i s s i ons 1 re gar di ng the s t anda rd c ondi t i ons vi ol at i ons al one j us t i fi ed the revocati on. At the revocati on heari ng, how eve r, the dist ri ct jud g e ind icated tha t his find ing s on the co nte ste d i ss u e s cou ld affectthe disposi ti on and s ente nce. M us s o was s en t en c ed on Janu ary 5, 20 11 , s o a s ofthe dat e of 2 or al ar gum en t, he ha d le ss thana m onth o fi m pri s onm en t re m ai ni ng. tions of stand ard cond itio n s a nd three violations of a spe ci al co ndi ti o n o f th e r el ea se . M us so a dm i tt ed two o fthe thre e s tandard co nd i ti ons vi ol ati ons ( the thi rd was dis

m i sse d b y the g ove rnm ent) but conte ste d the al l ege d sp ec ial c on d itio n vio lat ion s, all of w h ich rel a t e d to h is sexualo ffender tr eat m ent. 1 A ftera re voca ti on hearing, the dist ri ct j ud ge f ound that all of th e all egation s ha d been p roven, revoked M u sso’s re lea se , an d im p os ed a w ith in -gu id elin es se n te n c e of s ix m onths’ i m pri sonm ent a nd 30 m onths ofsuperv i sed re l eas e. The j u d ge als o announced seve ra lnew speci al

2 condi ti ons ofthe supervi sed r el eas e. M usso appeal s. Bac ki n 2 00 6, whenM us so r ec ei ve d hi s o r igi na ls en tence f orposs ess i on ofchi l d pornog ra phy ( speci fi cal l y, “g ra p h ic v isu al d ep ict ion s . . . sh ow [in g] a n ac tu al c h ild e ng a g e d in a s e x a c t ” ) , the di st r i c tj ud g e i mpo s e d a speci alco nd i ti on o fsuperv i si on r equi ring M usso to “pa r ti ci pat e i n a n a ppr o ve d s ex ua lo ffen dert r ea tment pr o g r am” a nd t o “abid e bya l lr ul es , r equi r ement s, a nd c on d itio n s o f th e t re at m en t p r og ra m .” A c c or d in gly , in 2 0 0 9 , a ft e rh i s r e l e a s e fr o m pr i s o n, Mus s o e nt e r e d aN o. 11

- 1153 3 tr ea tm en t p ro gr am an d s ign ed a c on tr ac t re ga rd in g h is re sp on sib ilitie s. T h e c on tr ac t s ta te d th at M u s so w ou ld “pa r ti ci pat e i n g r o up di sc us si o ns , tr ea tmenta ct i vi ti es , a nd w ri tte n ass i gnm ents” and that “si m plysho w i ng up f or ses si ons i s no t e nough to be consi dered co oper at ive w i th tr ea tm en t.” The contr act al so re quir ed M usso to avoid se xual m ate

r i al, i nc l udi ng“ [ a] ny v i su alde pi cti o ns o fc hi l dr ene nga ge d in se x u al ac tiv ity ,” “[a ]n y oth er vis u al . .

. m at er ials i ntended fo r the purpos e o fcau sing sexualar ousalfeatu r i ngo rde sc r ibingc hi l dr eni n a s ex ua lo re r o ti c m an ner, ” “ [ a] ny m ate ri alnotge nera l l y intended to be e ro ti c, but used bym e forthe pu rp os e ofar ousalo r othe r sexualpurpose featuri ng chi l dren” (to be i denti fi ed th r o u g h th e r a p y ) , a n d “ [ m] a t e r i a l s h o wi n g . . . o v e r t se xu al a c tiv ity inv olv in g a d u lts .” T h e c on tr ac t fu rt h er sp ec ifi ed th atM us so shou ld ha ve no c o nt ac t wi thc hi l dr en, except “ [ r] el ati ves, with di re ct e yes ight supervi si on by an ad u lt a w ar e o f offe n se h ist or y.” I n Aug us t 20 10 , pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce r s co nd uc ted a r o ut i ne se a r c h o fMus s o ’ s a pa r t men t

. T he r e , the y f o un d a b ox co nt aini ng3 7 pho to s o f“ femal e er o ti ca . ” One o fthe pi ctur es s ho wed a gi r lo fa que st i o nabl e ag e i n a b r a an d und er w ear . A ccor ding to the o ffice rs ’ r epor t, M usso expla i ned that the photo s were ofw om en o verthe age o f 18 a nd th at i t ha d b ee n a cc ept ab l e f o rhi m t o po ss es s th e pho to s whi l e i n pr i so n. M us so s ai d tha t he ha d s en t the photo s to hi s parents bef or e hi s r el eas e, and hi s par ents re centl y had r etur ned them to hi m . M usso’ s f atherl ate r ver i fi ed thi s info rm atio n and surm i sed thathi s s on had no t l o o k ed th r o ug h the b o x s i nc e i ts r eturn.4 N o. 11

- 1153 The offi ce r s a l so s ea r ch ed M us so ’ s ce l lpho ne a nd f o und seve n pictures that he had t ake n at a hi gh scho ol c ar was h fundr ai ser. The pho to s sh o wed M us so ’ s y o ung nephew with hi gh sc hoolgi rl s who w er e w ea ringsho rt s and t

- shi rt s or tank tops. A ccor ding to the o ffi cer s’ r epor t, M us s o e xp l a i ne d tha t he we nt t o the c a r wa sh with his fam i l y a nd thati t was the gi rl s’ i dea to i nvol ve hi s nephew i n the carwashing. M usso’ s m othe r l ate r ver i fi ed thi s info rm ati on and al so sta ted thatshe sugge ste d th at M us so take th e pictu res beca us e she had l eft he r cam era in her car. A l so du ring the sea rch, M usso vol unteer ed that he had re centl y b een he l ping a fem al e fri end, S ar ah M cBri de. S pe c i fi c a l l y, o n s e v e r a lo c c a s i o ns , Mus s o dr o v e McBr i de and her i nfa nt dau gh te r to the daughte r’ s day car e ce nter whi l e M cBr i de’ s ca rw as b eingr epa i r ed. On o ne o cc as i o n, M u ss o h ad M c B rid e’s d au gh te r alo n e w ith h im in h is c a rwh i l e McB r i de t e s tdr o v e a no the rv e hi c l e . McB r i de l ate r v e r i fi e d thi s i nfo r mat i o n du r i nga p ho ne i nt e r v i ew w ith a d efense i nv estigator. A roun d th e s am e t im e, M us so’s p robation officer, M ark Bu nd re n, r ecei ved i nfo rm ati on s ugges ti ng tha t M usso w as n otp ro gr es sin g in th er ap y. B u n d re n su b se q u en t ly re quested a sum m ar y ofM usso’ s p ro gr ess fro m hi s thera

pis t, Kr i ste n O’S tee n. O’S tee n re port ed i n a l ett er that, wh i l e M usso offer ed appropri ate feedbackto o ther g r o up me mbe r s a nd wa s a t t e nt i v e a nd we l l

- man ne r e d, he “t al ked i n gr ou p a b ou t su p er f i ci al per sonal to pi cs wi th o ute xa m i ni ngthe c o r e i ss ue s th atb r o ug ht h im to tre at m en t.” M u ss o “ fre q u en tly u se [ d ] d en ial,N o. 11

- 1153 5

m i ni m i zati on, and vi cti m st an ce t o avo i d accountab i l i ty for hi s a cti ons. ” He al so “l ack[ ed] m oti vati on t o pa rt ic ip at e m ea n in gfu lly ingro u p or c on sis te n tly tu rn in h is tr ea tm en t h om ew or k.” Based on th i s info rm ati on, the gov ernm ent fi l ed a p et itio n to rev ok e M u ss o’s su p er vis ed rele as e. Sp ec i fical l y, the gov er nm ent al l ege d that M usso vi ol ate d a speci al condi ti on ofsuperv i si on r equi ring hi m to “abi de by al lr ule s, r equi re m ents, and condi ti ons” ofthe sexual offender tr eat m ent pr ogr am by : ( 1) f ai l i ng to part i ci pate in sex ua l offen d er group treatm en t sessions and to turn in h om ew or k a ss ign m en ts , (2) poss ess ing pro hibi ted se xual m aterials, an d ( 3) having proh ibi ted cont act w ith a m inor. A fter the revoca tion he aring, th e d istri ct j ud g e de term i ne d tha t th e al l eg at i o ns ha d b ee n pr o ve n b y a pr epo nder a n c e o fth e e v i d e n c e . R e g a r d i n gth e fi r s ta l l e g a t i o n, th e ju d ge fou n d th at M u ss o w as “n otp ar tic ip at in g in ther apy i n a m eani ngful w ay[ , ]

. . . d oe sn’ t do hom ew or k a p p ro p ria te ly, .

. . [an d d o es ] n otta lk a b ou t h is o wn pr o bl ems. ” Re g ar di ngthe s ec o nd a l l eg at i o n, the j ud ge fou nd thatthe “pi cture thatwas put i n evi dence of th e y ou n g g irl inh er u n d er w ea r [ w a s ] u n q u es tio n ab ly s o met hi ng tha t [ M usso] sho uld not have had i n [ hi s] poss ess i on” and that M usso “ha[ d] a n obl i gat i on to go thro ugh thos e [ pictures ] and ge t r i d ofanythi ng tha t’ s g oi ng to p u t you i n tr oubl e. ” The j ud ge al so f ound that “ [ i ] t’ s a vi ol ati on f or [ a] se x offender to ta ke a p ict u re like [t h e o n es of th e h i g h s c h oo l girls ].” Regar ding the thi rd al l ega ti on, the j ud ge fou n d that M usso havi ng M cB ride’s daughter al one i n hi s ca r w as “u n su p er vis ed co n ta c t w ith a m in or .”6 N o. 11

- 1153 The j ud ge concl ud ed that “i fo ne lo oks atthe cum ula ti ve effec t o fthe se o ffen se s, the y t el la mor e s er i o us st o r y, a nd th eya t th e ve r y l ea str ai se a r ed fl agf o ra c o nc ern abo ut th e futur e[

. ] ” I n a ddi ti o n t o a t er m o fi m pr i so nm en t an d su p er vise d rel eas e, the j ud ge al so i m posed new speci al c on d i tio n s o f th e re lea se , req u irin g M u ss o t o: (1) s u b m it to si x m onths of“l oca ti on m on i tor i ng” a fterhi s r el eas e fr o m p r i s o n, ( 2) o b s e r v e a 9 p . m. t o 6 a . m. c u r fe w, (3) re fra infrom freq u en tin g, loit e r in g, or re sid in g w ith in 500 feeto fl oca ti ons w here chi l dren co ngre gat e, ( 4) have no su p ervised or un su p ervised cont act w ith a n y m inor, an d (5) for e g o v olu n te er ac tiv itie s t h at m igh t re su lt i n conta ct with m i nor s. M usso did notr ai se an o bj ecti on to th e n ew sp ec ial c on d itio n s. On appeal, M usso tak es i ssue w i th the j ud ge’ s d eci si on to re vok e his sup er vi sed r el eas e a nd the j ud ge’ s i m posi ti on ofn e w s pe c i a lc o nd i t i o ns o fthe r e l e a s e . We r e vi ew a r evo cati on o fsuperv i sed r el eas e foran abuse o fdi scr etio n . U ni t e d St at e s v. Young, 41 F. 3d 1184, 11 86 ( 7th C ir. 1994). A district j ud ge’ s f actu al find ings are re vie w e d for c lea r er ro r. U nited Sta tes v. B erry, 58 3 F. 3d 1032 , 10 34 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)

. S up er vi sed r elease m ay be r evo ke d if a vi ol ati on o fa condi ti on o fthe re l eas e i s p r o v e n b y a p r e po nd e r an c e o fthe e v i de nc e . 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 58 3( e) ( 3)

. To r epe at, a l lo fthe c o nt es te d a l l eg at i o ns r el at e to a sp eci alc o ndi ti o n o fs upe r vi si o n r equi r i ng M u ss o t o “ ab id e b y a ll ru les , re q u ire m en ts , an d co n d it i o n s ” o fth e s e x u a lo ffe n d e rt r e a t me n tp r o g r a m. The j ud ge f ound that M usso did notpart i ci pate m eani ngfu l l y i n s e x u a lo ffe n d e rg r o u p t r e a t me n ts e s s i o n s a ndN o. 11

- 1153 7 f ai l ed to tur n in hom ew ork as si gnm ents. M usso’ s t re atm en tc o n t r a c ts t a t e d th a th e wo u l d “ p a r t i c i p a t e i n g r o up disc ussi ons, tr eat m ent a cti v i t i e s, a nd wri tte n ass i gnm ents” and that “ si m plysho w i ng up f orsessio ns i s no t e nough to be c onsi dered co oper ati ve w i th tr eat m ent. ” Yet O’ S te enr epo r te d tha t M us so “ ta l k ed i n g r o up abo ut su p erfi cial p erson al topics w ithou t exa m inin g the core i s s ue s tha tb r o ughth i m t o t r e a t men t, ” “ fr e qu e nt l y u s e [ d] denia l, m i ni m i zati on, and vi cti m stance to avo i d accountab ility for h is a c tio n s,” an d “la c k[e d ] m ot iva tio n to p ar tic ip at e m ea n in gfu lly i n g r o u p or c on sis te n tly tu rn in hi s t re atm ent ho m ew or k. ” Thi s e vi dence cl ear l y s up port

ed th e jud ge ’s fin d in g. M usso’s o nl y c ounter ar gum ent o n thi s i ssue i s that O ’Steen ’s com p lai nt s w ere base d prim aril y on M us so’s conte nti on that he did notco m m i t the o theral l ege d speci al c o n d i t i o n v i o l a t i o n s . B u t, a s s h o wn by th e e x c e r p t s we j ust di scusse d, O’S teen a l so deter m i ned that M usso w as not prog re ssing i n ther apy be cause ofhi s f ai l ure to ex ami ne c o r e i ss ue s, par ti ci pat e m ea ni ng ful l y i n th e g r o up ses si ons, and subm i t ho m ew or k a ssi gnm ents. A nd M usso speci fi cal l y a dm i tt ed the l att eral l ega ti on in hi s a pp el l ate bri ef

. Thus, ther e was no e rr ori n the j ud ge’ s co ncl usi on th atthe fi r sta l l eg at i o n h ad be enpr o ve n. The j ud ge al so f ound that M usso posse sse d sexual m ate ri al s pro hibi ted byhi s s ex o ffender tr e a t men tc o ntra ct. T h e c on tr ac t re q u ire d M u ss o t o a vo id se x u al m at er ial, i ncl ud i ng: ( 1) “depi cti ons ofchi ld re n enga ged i n sexual activity,” (2 ) “ v is ua l

. . . m aterials int en d ed f or the p urpo se o fc au sings ex ua la r o us alf eatur i ngo rde sc r ibing8 N o. 11

- 1153 chi l dren i n a s exual o r er oti c m anner, ” ( 3) “m ate ri alnot g e n e r a l l y i n t e n d e d t o b e e r o t i c , b u t u s e d b y me f o r t he pur po se o fa r o us alo r oth ers ex ua lpur po se fea tu r i ng ch i l dr en ” ( to b e i den ti fi ed through th er apy ) , a nd ( 4) “[ m ] ate ri alsho w i ng . . . ov ert s exual act i vi ty i nvol vi ng adul ts. ” Bu t duri ng a sea rch ofM usso’ s a p ar tm ent, pro bati on offic er s fo u n d a b ox co n ta in in g 3 7 p h ot os of “fe m ale er oti ca. ” The i m age s, such a s the o ne adm i tte d i nto ev idence ofthe young fem al e i n herunderw ear, cl ear l y v i ol ate a tl e a s to ne o fthe c o nt r a c tp r o v i s i o ns th a twe j us tl i s t e d. A nd , co ntra ryto M usso’ s a sse rt ions, the re cor d i nd i cate s that he kn ew that the box was i n hi s pos ses si on a nd that he was f am i l i arwit h t h e pictures i n the box. Thus, the j ud g e di d n o te r ri n fi nd i ngthat M us s o “ ha [ d] an o b l iga tio n to go t h ro u gh th os e [p ict u re s] a n d ge t rid ofanythi ng tha t’ s g oi ng to put yo u i n tr oubl e. ” M us so a l so kno wi ng l y po ss es se d s ev enp i c tu r e s s ho wi ng h is yo u n g n ep h ew ata c ar w as h w ith h igh sc h oo l girls w ho were w ear i ng sho rt s a nd t-shi rt s o r tank tops. M us so a nd hi s m o th er came u p wi ths ev er alr ea so ns w hy M usso’ s a cti ons w er e innocent, but the po in t is that M usso adm i tting to ta ki ng the pi cture s, al lo fwh i ch fea tu re d sc an tily -c lad te en ag e g irls. Su c h im ag es arg u ab ly f al l und er the thi rd prohibi ti on i n M us so ’s contr act. B u t ev en giv in g M u ss o th e b en efitof th e d ou b t o n th is m att er( the e vi dence w as sli m r ega rdi ng wh etheri m age s li ke th ese w ere id en tified th roug h th erap y), M us so’s posse ssi on o f37photo s o f“fem al e e ro ti ca” provi ded suffi ci ent supp or t f or the j ud ge’ s deter m i nati on that th e se co nd a l l eg at i o n h ad be enpr o ve n.N o. 11

- 1153 9 Fi nal l y, the j ud ge f ound th at M usso engag ed i n prohibi ted conta ct w i th a m i nor . The contr act speci fied that M us s o s ho ul d h a v e n o c o nt a c twi th c hi l dr e n, e xc e pt “[r ]ela tiv es , w ith d ire c t e ye sig h t s u p e rv isio n by an ad u lt aw ar e of offense hi sto ry . ” Du ring the proba ti on offi cer s’ sea rch ofM usso’ s a partm ent, he v ol unteer ed th at, o n se ve r al o cc as i o ns , he dr o ve M cBr i de an d he ri nf an t daughter to the d au gh ter’s da y care cen ter w hile M cB ride’s carwas being rep air ed. M usso furtheradm i tte d that, on o ne o ccasi on, h e had M cBri de’s daughteral one w i th hi m i n hi s c a r . T hi s c o nd uc tc l e a r l y v i o l a t e s the c o nt r a ct, as M cBri de’s d aughterwas not M usso’ s r el ati ve. Thus, the j ud ge did noter r i n concl ud i ng tha t the thi rd al l ega ti on h ad be en p ro ve n . M usso al so bri efly chal l enges the j ud ge’ s i m posi ti on o f new speci alco nd i ti ons ofthe re l eas e. N or m al l y, we re vi ew su c h d ec isio n s fo r an a b u se of d isc re tio n . U nited Sta tes v. R o ss , 47 5 F

. 3d 871, 87 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)

. But w here , as here , a defe nd ant di d n ot obj ect to the s peci alco nd i ti ons, ou r re vie w is for p lain err or . Id. In h is a p p ella te rep ly b rie f, M u ss o a r g u es th at w e s h ou ld n otap p ly p lain er r o rr ev i ew b ec au se he ha d i ns uffi cient n o ti ce o fthe new sp ec ial condi ti ons, he ha d a l i m i ted o pp or tuni ty to obj ect, and any obj ecti on w ou ld h ave been futi l e. N o m att er . W e would fi nd the j ud ge’ s deci si on pro per e v e n un de rthe mo r e f a v o r ab l e s t a nd a r d. S pec i a lc o n d i t i o n s mu s tb e r e a s o n ab l y r e l a t e d t o the defen dan t’ s o ffen se , hi st o r y, a nd c ha r ac te r i st i cs ; the n ee d fordeter re nce; the need to pro tectthe pu bl i c fro m th e defen dan t; a nd the ne ed to pr o vi de th e defen dan t10 N o. 11

- 1153

w ith tre at m en t. See 18 U. S

. C. § 3583 ( d)

. The c o ndi ti o ns cannot i nvol ve a “gr eat er depri vati on of l iber ty th an i s r eas onabl y nec ess ar y” to ach i eve the l att erthr ee goa l s. Id

. H er e, the new speci alco nd i ti ons r equi re d M usso to: ( 1) subm i t t o si x m onths of“l oca ti on m oni tor i ng” a fter h i s r e l e a s e fr o m p r i s o n, ( 2 ) o b s e r v e a 9 p . m. t o 6 a . m. cur few, ( 3) re fr ain fr o m fr eque nt i ng, l o i te r i ng, o rr es i di ng w ith in 50 0 feeto fl oca ti ons w here chi l dren co ngre gat e, ( 4) ha ve no s upe r vi se d o runs upe r vi se d c o nt ac t wi tha ny m in or, an d (5 ) fo re go v olu n te er a c tiv itie s th at m igh t re su lt i n conta ct with m i nor s. M u ss o ar gues that these r est ri cti o ns s ee kt o pr ev en t co nt ac t o ffen se s, a nd there is n o r ea so n t o b el i ev e th athe i s dan g er o us t o c hi l dr en . M u ss o ’s o rig in al off en se inv olv ed p os se ss in g “ gr ap h ic vi sualdepic ti ons . . . sh ow[i ng] an a ctualchi l d engag ed in a sex ac t.” M ore i m p ortan tly, w e ha v e a lr ead y d eterm i ned that M usso com m i tte d thr e e v i ol ati ons ofan o ri gi nal speci alco nd i ti on o ft he r el eas e, o ne o fwh i ch i nvol ved havi ng pro hibi ted co ntact w i th a m i nor . Based o n thes e f ac ts , the j udg e di d no t ab us e hi s di sc reti o n in i m po sing new speci alco n d i ti ons ai m ed at preve nti ng co ntact offenses . F o r a l l o f th e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , th e j u d g me n t o ft he dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

7- 1- 11