Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10087
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. J ES S E L EO N C HRI S T IAN D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 07- C R

- 226
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef Ju dg e, H IG G IN B O T H A M an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * Jesse Leon C h ri st i an (“ C h ri st i an ” ) app e a ls t h e i m posi t i on of a cond i t i on of su p erv i sed releas e p r e v e n ti n g h i m f rom h a vin g u n su p erv i sed con tact w i th m i n ors w ithou tt h e perm i ssi on of hi s probati on of

f i cer. W e af

f i rm . H e al so ap pea l s a sentenci n g cond i t i on requi ri n gh i s part i ci pa t i on i n sex of fen der t r e at m e nt . W e rej e c tt hi s cha l l e nge as unr i pe . Fi nall y, Chr i s t i an c hall e nge s t he d i stri ct cou rt' s ru l i n g th a t his fed era ls en ten ce ru n co n secu tive ly w i th an y sta te United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10087

2 s e n te n c e s , w h ic h h a v e n o t y e t b e e n i m p o s e d
. H e a d m its th is a r g u m e n t is foreclosed bypr ece d en t. C h r is tia n p l ed n olo con ten d ere to seco n d d eg ree ra p e of a n a d u l t, in O kl aho m a i n Apr i l2 00 5. Rel e as e d o n pr o ba t i o n i n Se pt e m be r2 00 6, he r egi st er ed as a se x of fenderi n O kl ahom a C i t y. B utw hen he tr avel ed t o Texas i n F ebru ary 200 7, he fai l ed to n ot i f y h i s probati on of

f i cer or t o regi st er as a sex o ffe n d e rin T e x a s , a s re q u ir e db y1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 0 . O n J u n e 1, 2 00 7, hew as a r r e s t e d i n Te xa s f o re i ghto ut s t and i ng fe l o ny w ar r ant s and t w o m i sde m eanorw ar r ant s, al lor i gi nat i ng f r om O kl ahom a. C hri st i an c l ai m ed he t r avel ed t o Texas j ustfora sho r tt i m e, bac k i n F ebr uary, t o gethi s s on , Sh an e F on t ai n e, out of f ost er c are. S h an e w as i n t h e cust odyof C hi l d Prot ec t ive Ser vi c es be c ause of al l ege d s exualabu se per pet r at ed by som eo n e else. A t th e ti m e of his arre st, C h ri sti a n w a s em p l oy ed an dl ivin g w i th h i s gi rl f ri en d, w h o w as his est ran gedw i fe' s dau gh t er by an ot h er father. C h ri st i an w as i n di ct ed on a si n gl e coun tof fai l u re t o regi ste r as a sex of fen der, 18 U
. S
. C
. § 2250
. Th e presentence report(“ P S R ” ) cal cul ated C h r is tia n ' s o ffe n s e l e v e l a t 1 2 . H is e x te n s iv e cr im in a l re c o r dp la c e dh im in cri m i n alhi st ory cat egory V I. A s a resul t , t h e sentenci n g ran ge w as cal cul ated at 30 t o 37 m on t h s. C h ri st i an ob j ect ed t o p ort i on s of t h e P S R
. Th e di st ri ctcourt d en i ed the go ve rn m en t' s m oti o n t o d e p a rt up w a rdan dsen ten ced C h ri sti a n to 37 m o n t h s a n d f

iv e y e a r s o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , wi t h t h e s e n t e n c e t o r un c o ns e c ut ive l y t o a ny as y e tuni m po s e d s t at e s e nt en c e s s t e m m i ng f r o m t he ou t st an di n g w arran t s. T h e court al so i m posed t w o speci alt erm s of sup ervi sed r e l e as e . The c o ur to r de r e d Chr i s t i an t o " pa r t i c i pa t e i n s e x o f fe nde rt r eatm ent servi ces . . . [w h i ch] m ay i n cl u de p sycho-phy si ol ogi calt est i n g. " A l so, t h e court ba r r e d Chr i s t i an f

r o m " anyf

o r m o f uns upe r vi s e d c o nt ac tw i t h m i no r s und e rt he a g e o f 1 8 a t a n y lo c a tio n . . . w ith o u t p r io r p e r m is s io n o f th e p r o b a tio n o ffic e r ." C h ri st i an obj ect ed to both cond i t i on s, an d aft er an of f

- th e -re co rd conversati onN o. 08- 10087

3 w i t h t h e probati on of f i cer, t h e court r u led t h at t h e rec ord j u st i f i ed these cond i t i on s. Chri s t i an ap pe al s t he t w o c o ndi t i o ns o f s upe r vi sed rel e as e a nd t he im p o s itio n o f as e n te n c e to ru n co n s e c u tiv e lyw ith afu tu r e s ta te s e n te n c e . B ec ause C hri st i an obj ec t ed be l ow t o t he im p osi t i on o f bo t h spe c i al c ondi t i ons of

s uper vi se d r el eas e, w e review t he di st r i c tc our t ' s dec i si on f oran a b u s e o f d i s c r e tio n . Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 558 F
. 3d 408 , 412 ( 5th C i r. 200 9)
. A di st ri ct court h as w i de di scr et i on t o i m pose an y cond i t i on of sup ervi sed relea se itde em s ap p rop ri a te, bu t t h e con d i ti on s m u st b e reas on a b l y rel a tedto th r e e cr ite r ia
. R od rigu ez , 5 5 8 F
. 3 d a t 4 1 2 -13 (citi n g 18 U
. S
. C
. § 35 8 3 (d))
. F i rst, t h e sentence m u stbe reasonab l y rel ated, t o ( 1) " t h e na t u re and circum st an ces o f t he o f fe ns e a nd t he hi s t o r y andc har ac t e r i s t i c s o f the de fe nda nt , " ( 2) t he deterr en ce of

cr i m i n alcondu ct , ( 3) t h e prot ect i on of t h e pu bl i c f

rom an y f

u rt h er c r i m es , and ( 4) t he def endant ' s " neede d educ at i onalorvo c at i onalt r ai ni ng, m e d i c a lc a r e , o ro t h e rc o r r e c t i o n a lt r e a t m e n t . " § 3 5 8 3 ( d ) ( 1 ) (c i t i n g1 8 U. S
. C. § 355 3( a) ( 1) , ( a) ( 2) ( B )

- (D ) )
. Secon d, t h e condit i on cann oti m pose an y " greater de pr iva t i o n t han i s r e as o nab l y ne c e s s ar y" t o de t e rc r i m i nalc o nduc t , pr o t e c tt he p u b l i c f rom an y o f th e d efen d a n t' s futu re crim es, a n dpr ov i d e th e d efen d a n t w i th

" neede d educ at i onalorvo c at i onalt r ai ni ng, m edi c alc ar e, o r ot herc or r ec t i onal t r e at m e nt . " § 3 58 3( d) ( 2) (c i t i ng 18 U
. S. C. § 3 55 3( a) ( 2) ( B)

- (D ) )
. Thi r d, t he cond i t i on m u stb e c on si st en tw i t h an y perti n en tpol i cy st atem en t s t h e U n i t ed S ta te s S e n te n cin gC o m m iss ion issu e s. § 3 5 8 3 (d)(3). 1. N o C ont actw i t h M i nor Ch i l dre n W i t hou tP er m i s s i on C hri st i an c hal l enges t he c ondi t i on of supervi se d r el eas e t hat he nothave an y u n sup ervi sed contactw i t h m i n ors w i t h ou ta probation o ffi cer' s pri or a p p r o v a l. S i m i l a rre s tr ic tio n s h a v e b e e n u p h e ldinca s e s in v o lv in gch ild p o r n o g r a p h yo rs e x u a l co n ta c tw i th m in o r s . Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 5 5 8 F .3d 4 0 8 (5 t h C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ) (p e n d in gsta te ch a rg e forse x u a l as sa u lt of aN o. 08- 10087

Chri stianh as two other children with two differentwomen . 1 Chri stianan d his e strange d wife, Sherry Fontaine, h ad twins to gether , Sh ane 2 Fontaine an d Sh aniaChristian , who died from su dden infant de ath syn drom e at the a ge of two month s. SherryFontaineh as four other children not by Christian. Pre sumab lythe P SR was referencingsome combinationof thesefive children.

Christian’s written obj ections to the PSR state that he believes the char gewas 3 dropp ed. The arre stalone w ouldnot be com pelling, but this one wa s cou ple d with hisapolo gy an d re qu est for forgivenes s. 4 m in o r); Un ite dS ta te s v . B u c h a n a n , 485 F
. 3d 274 , 288 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) (convic t ed o f r e c e ip t o f c h ildp o r n o g r a p h y); Uni t e d St at e s v . Paul , 2 7 4 F
. 3 d1 5 5 , 16 5 -66 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) (p le dg u iltyto p o s s e s s io n o f c h ildp o r n o g r a p h y). C hri st i an ar gues t hathi s pri orc onvi c t i on, i n co nt r as t , i s f or t he r ape of

an ad ul t . H e a l s o a r gue s t hatt he r e i s no pr o o f o f hi s s e xua lc o nt ac tw i t h c hi l dr e n, o rth a t h e is lik e l yt o a b u s e c h ild r e n . H e co n te n d s th a t t h e re s tr ic tio n w ill pre venthi m f

r om s ee i ng hi s so n, al t hough i ti s uncl earw hen C hri st i an l as ts aw Shane Fo nt ai ne o rhi s o t he rc hi l dr e n. 1 The go ve r nm e n ta r g ue s t he r e s t r i c t i o n i s j us t i f i e d b e c aus e t he c o ur tf o und, based on the P S R , t h at C h ri st i an vi ew ed ad u l tpornog raph y i n t h e vi ci n i t y of c hi l dre n, and t he PS R s t at ed t hat" [ a] c c or di ng t o r ec or ds f r om t he Texas D epa rt m en tof

F am i l y an d P rot ect ive S ervi ces, t h ere i s a l en gthy recor d of abu se and negl ec tas so c i at ed w i t h [ C hri st i an] , h i s w i fe, and t hei rc hi l dre n. " Al t hough 2 Chri s t i an i s no tund e ri nve s t i ga t i o n f o rs e xua l l y ab us i n g S h an e Fo nt ai ne , t he detai l s of

t h i s i n vest i gati on are u n cl ear as t h e P S R st ates t h at t h e i n vest i gati on i s on goi n g. T h e P S R al so m en t i on s a M arch 9, 200 5, arres tf or " corporeali nj u ry t o c h il d " w h ere C h ri st i an den i ed cau si n g a bru i se t o t h e rear en d of an ot h er i n fan tson w i t h an ot h er w om an . W h i l e bei n g qu est i on ed, C h ri st i an apologi zed a n da s k e dfo rfo r g iv e n e s s . S ta te m e n ts in a P S R u s u a llyh a v e s u ffic ie n t in d ic ia 3 o f r e l i ab i l i t y t o b e useda s e vi de nc e , unl e s s t he PSR m e r e l y r e c i t e s t he p r o s e c u to r ' s c o n c lu s io n s . Un i t e dS t a t e s v . R o me , 207 F
. 3d 251 , 254 ( 5th C i r.N o. 08- 10087

5 20 00 )
. The s t at e m e nt s he r e a r e s uf f i c i e nt l y r e l i ab l e , a nd Chr i st i an o f fe r s no e v id e n c e in re b u tt a l. Se ei d. B ecau se th e di st ri ctcourtha s w i de d i scr et i on t o i m pose t erm s of sup ervi sed rel ease, t h i s evi den ce, vi ew ed i n i t s entiret y, i s s u f f i ci en tt o sup port th e res tri cti on . C h ri sti a n is n ot, h ow ev er, i n elu ctab l y b a rred f rom con tact w i th hi s c hi l dr e n. The t e r m o f s upe r vi s e d r e l e as e a l l o w s s uc h c o nt ac tw i t h t he proba t i on of

f i cer' s perm i ssi on . I f

such p erm i ssi on i s u n fai rly den i ed, t h e di st ri ct c o u r tc a n mo d i f

yt h i s t e r m u n d e r1 8 U
. S
. C. § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) ( 2 ) a n dF e d
. R
. C r i m. P . 3 2 .1 (c ). Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Phi pps , 319 F. 3d 177 , 1 9 3 -9 4 ( 5t h C i r . 2003) (u ph ol di n g cond i t i on of sup ervi sed rel ease an d su ggesti n g m odi f i cat i on as a p o ss ib le re m e d y). 2 . Se x Of

f e nde rTr e at m e nt C h ri stian argu es t h at r equ i ri n g h i m t o parti ci pa t e i n sex of fen der t reat m en tservi ces t h at m i gh t i n cl u de psycho- ph ysi ol ogi cal t est i n g i s a greater d e p riv a tion of lib e rtyth a n is r e a so n a b ly n e ce ss a ryu n d e r 1 8 U .S .C
. § 3 5 8 2 (d)(2). H e fear s th a t pa rt of h i s trea tm en t w i l li n vo lve a m en tally a n dph ys i ca lly in tr u s iv e p r o c e d u r e o f d is p u te d s c ie n tific v a lid ity c a lle d th e p e n ile pl e thys m o gr ap h. Chr i st i an ' s broadsi de ag ai n stt h i s t est i n g i s un ripeb e c aus ethe cou rt did n ot ord er h i m to su b m i t t o th is p roce d u re, a n dthe re is no certa i n ty w h a tsoev er t h e pro ced u re w i l l b e ord ere d
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Carm i cha el , 343 F
. 3d 756 , 7 61-62 ( 5th C i r. 200 3)
. Th i s c h al l en ge t o a cond i t i on of sup ervi sed rel ease i s un l i ke C h ri st i an ' s ch al l en ge rel ated a bove, w h ere the rest ri ct i on is not c o n tin g e n t o n fu tu r e e v e n ts o rd e c is io n s . See, e . g. , Uni t e d St at e s v . Paul , 274 F. 3d 155, 164- 55 ( 5t h C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( addre ss i ng t he appea lof s eve r al r es t r i c t i ons i ncl udi ng no cont ac tw i t h m i nor s)
. W e agr ee w i t h t hos e c i r c ui t s t hat di sm i ssed si m i l ar challen g e s to penil e pl et h sym ograp h t est i n g f or l ack of r ip e n e s s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. R h od es , 5 5 2 F .3 d6 2 4 , 6 2 8 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ); Un i t edN o. 08- 10087

6 S t ate s v. L ee , 5 0 2 F .3 d4 4 7 , 4 4 9 -4 5 1 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). B uts e eUn it edS tat e s v. W eber , 4 5 1 F .3d a t 5 5 6 -5 7 (9t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). N e ve r t he l e s s , a s w i t h t he no - c o n t a c tr e s t r i c t i o n, Chr i s t i an c an pe t i t i o n t he di st ri ctcourtto m odi f y t h i s c on di t i on i f

he i s or dered to s u bm i tt o t h e procedu re. 3. C oncurr ents ent ence s C h ri st i an chal l en ges t h e di st ri ctcourt ' s r u l i n g t h at hi s f ed eralsentence m us tr un c o ns e c ut ive l y w i t h a ny st at e s e nt e nc e t hatm ayb e i m po s e d f o rt he O klahom a cha rges pend i n g at t h e t i m e of hi s arr est . Th i s argum en ti s f orecl osed b yo u rp r io rca s e la w . Un i t e dS t a t e s v . B r o wn , 920 F
. 2d 121 2, 121 6- 17 (5t h C i r. 1991) F o rth e s e re a s o n s , th e s e n te n c e im p o s e db yth e d is t r i c tc o u r t is AF FI RM ED
.