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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 7- 14 58

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

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

Pla in ti ff - App el le e

v.

Mar k R ic ha rd Dall m an

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 12 , 20 18

Fil ed : Ap ril 11 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BENTO N, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Mar k R ic ha rd Dall m an pl ed gu il ty to o ne co un t of fai lu re to reg is te r as a se x

of fen de r aft er tra ve li ng in in te rs ta te co m m erce in vi ol at io n of th e Sex Offen de rReg is tra ti on an d Not ifi cat io n Act, 18 U.S.C. § 22 50 (a). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced 1

Dall m an to ti m e se rv ed fol lo wed by a life ti m e o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

D a l l man ch al le ng es a sp eci al co nd it io n pr oh ib it in g hi m fro m po ss es si ng o r

us in g an y el ect ro ni c de vi c e w i t h i n t ern et acce ss wit ho ut th e pr io r ap pr ov al of hi s

pr ob at io n of

fic er. W hi le we ha ve juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S

. C

. § 1 2 9 1, we di sm is s

t h i s ap pe al be cau se Dall m an kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly en te red a pl ea ag ree men t

waiv in g h is rig ht to ap pe al

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Bec au se Dall m an was co nv i c t e d of Cl as s A fel on y rap e of a ch il d in

W as hi ng to n in 19 97

, he is req ui red to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r fo r th e res t of hi s li fe.

In Aug us t 20 13

, th e Uni te d St at es Mar sh al ’s Serv ic e be cam e aware th at Dall m an was

li vi ng at an RV pa rk in W es t Pl ai ns

, Mi ss ou ri, wit ho ut ha vi n g r eg is te red as a se x

of fen de r. Mem

be rs of th e lo cal sh er i f

f ’s d ep art m en t wen t to Dall m an ’s res id en ce

w h e re he pr es en te d a Mi ss ou ri dr iv er’s li cen se be ari ng th e na m e Jo hn Mo n r o e

San de rs , a Mi ss ou ri m an who di ed in 19 71 . An in ve st ig at io n s ho wed th at Dall m an

ha d be en us in g San de rs ’s na m e si nc e at le as t 2 0 0 7

, ha vi ng us ed th e in te rn et to 2

di sc ov er th e id en ti ty of a y ou ng m an who ha d di ed wit ho ut su rv iv or s. Dall m an ha d

be en res id in g as San de rs at th e RV pa rk fo r ap pr ox im at el y 18 m on th s. The of fic ers

arre st ed Dall m an as a n u nr eg is te red sex off en de r. 3

The Hon or ab le M. Dou gl as Harp oo l, Uni te d St at es Dis tri c t J u d g e fo r th e 1

W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

A du pl ic at e So ci al Secu rit y card was is su ed twi ce in San de rs ’s na m e in 20 07

. 2

An arre st warra nt was al so is su ed in 20 08 in Pi erce Co un ty, W as hi ng to n, fo r 3

fai lu re to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r. As of th e writ in g of th e Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n

Rep or t, t ha t war ran t re m ai ne d a ct iv e.

-2

-A f

t e r Dall m an ’s arre st

, a se arch was co nd uc te d on hi s co m pu te r, whi c h

rev eal ed a vi de o of ch il d po rn og rap hy. The se arch of th e co m pu te r was ch al le ng in g

be cau se th e co m

pu te r was or ga ni zed in a hi gh ly co m pl ic at ed m an ne r wit h m

ul ti pl e

pa rti ti on s, o pe rat in g s y st em s, an d h ard dri ve s.

Dall m an was ch arg ed in th ree co un ts : fai lu re to reg is te r as a se x o f f e n d e r

,

po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy, an d rece ip t an d di st rib ut io n of ch il d po rn og rap hy.

On Nov em

be r 17

, 20 16

, Dall m an pl ed gu il ty pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t to Co un t

One

, fai lu re to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r. The two c h i l d p o r n o g r ap hy co un ts were

di sm i s s e d fo ll owi ng a su cces sf ul m ot io n to su pp res s th e se arch of th e co m pu te r.

Dall m an ’s pl ea ag reem en t i nc lu de s t he fol lo win g a pp eal waiv er:

The de fen da nt ex pr es sl y waiv es hi s rig ht to ap pe al hi s se nt en ce, di rect ly

or co ll at eral ly, on an y gr ou nd ex cep t cl ai m s of

. . . (3 ) a n i l l e g a l

se nt en ce. An “ il le ga l sen te nc e” inc lu de s a se nt en ce im po se d in ex ces s

of th e st at ut or y m ax im

um

, bu t do es no t in cl ud e le ss se rio us se nt en ci ng

erro rs

, su ch as a m is ap pl ic at io n of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, an ab us e

of di sc ret io n, o r th e im

po si ti on of a n u nr eas on ab le sen te nc e.

The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Dall m an to ti m e se rv ed fo ll owe d by s u p e r v is ed

rel eas e fo r li fe. He ob

jecte d to sp eci al co nd it io n (m ), whi ch pr oh ib it s th e po ss es si on

o r u s e o f an el ect ro ni c de vi ce wit h in te rn et acce ss wit ho ut pr io r ap pr ov al fro m a

pr ob at io n of

fic er. Dall m an req ue st ed th at he be al lo wed to acce ss rel ig io us m at eri al s

an d c on ta ct fri en ds an d fa m il y vi a th e in te rn et

. The co ur t was un pe rs ua de d, n ot in g

th at Dall m an “ ha s un de rg on e a p e r s is te nt pa tt ern of effo rts to av oi d hi s

res po ns ib il it ie s to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r.” The co ur t sp eci fic al ly no te d th at it was

no t in cl in ed to m od ify sp eci al co nd it io n (m ) be cau se th e “ pr ob le m is th at we ha ve [a]

pr ob at io n of

fic e wit h li m it ed res ou rces an d it ’s a lo t ha rd er to ke ep tra ck of so m eo ne

as to ex act ly wha t th ey ’re do in g on a co m pu te r th an it is to te ll th em jus t do n’t ha ve

a co m pu te r.”

-3

-In sp it e o f th e co ur t’s i nc li na ti on , it sl ig ht ly m od ifi ed sp eci al co nd it io n (m):

The de fen da nt sh al l no t po ss es s or us e an y co m pu te r or el ect ro ni c de vi ce

wit h acce ss to an y ‘on- li ne co m pu te r se rv ic e’ wit ho ut th e pr io r ap pr ov al

of th e Pro ba ti on Offi ce. Thi s in cl ud es an y pu bl ic or pr i v a t e c o mpu te r

ne two rk

. The Pro ba ti on Offi cer sh al l at te m pt to al l o w th e de fen da nt

co m pu te r acce ss as ne ces sa ry to pa rti ci pa te in rel ig io us s e r v i c e s,

act iv it ie s an d s tu di es pe rta in in g t o J eh ov ah W it ne ss

.

The c o u r t a l so ex pl ai ne d at se nt en ci ng th at Dall m an co ul d st il l co m m un ic at e wit h

fam il y by t el ep ho ne or m ai l an d t ha t t he co ur t was lea vi ng to th e p ro ba ti on off ic e’s

di sc ret io n whe th er to al lo w on li ne fam il y co m m un ic at io ns

. Dall m an no w ap pe al s th e

im po si ti on of s pe ci al co nd it io n (m).

II

. Dis cus si on

Dall m an cl ai m s th e ap pe al waiv er do es no t ba r hi s ap pe al be cau se hi s se nt en ce

co ns ti tu te s an il le ga l se nt en ce an d res ul ts in a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. Sp eci fic al ly, he

as se rts th at , in hi s ca se , li fet im e su pe rv is io n wi th sp eci al co nd it io n (m) is an il le ga l

se nt en ce be cau se 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d ) req ui res th at “ [s ]uch co nd it i o n s

. . . be

na rro wly ta il or ed in each cas e to no t res tri ct a de fen da nt ’s rig ht s an y m or e th an

reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic an d he lp th e de fen da nt tra ns it io n ba ck in to

so ci et y .” App el la nt ’s Br. 6.

W e rev ie w de no vo is su es co nc ern in g th e in te rp ret at io n an d en fo rcem en t of a

pl ea ag reem en t an d th e ap pl ic at io n of ap pe al waiv ers

. Uni te d St at es v. Cv ijan ov ic h,

55 6 F.3 d 85 7, 86 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) ; U n i t e d St at es v. Qui ro ga

, 55 4 F.3 d 11 50

, 11 55

(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ci ta ti on s om i t t e d )

. W he n we rev ie w an ap pe al waiv er, we m us t

de te rm in e: (1 ) whe th er th e ap pe al fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of th e waiv er, (2 ) whe th er th e

pl ea ag reem en t an d waiv er were en te red in to kn owi ng ly an d vo l u n t a r il y

, an d (3 )

whe th er en fo rci ng th e waiv er wou ld res ul t in a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. Uni te d St at es

-4

-v. And is

, 33 3 F.3 d 88 6, 88 9– 89 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ). If th e ap pe al waiv er do es

no t ba r rev ie w of a co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, we rev ie w th e im po si ti on of th e

co nd it io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d Stat es v. Meffo rd

, 71 1 F.3d 92 3, 92 6 (8 th

Ci r. 20 13 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Bos to n, 4 94 F.3d 66 0, 6 67 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) ).

A. Dal lman’s ap pea l w ai ve r f o r e cl os es hi s cha ll eng e to the

sp eci al co ndi tio n.

Our de ci si on s in And i s a n d Uni te d St at es v. Bi ll io t, 78 5 F.3 d 12 66 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ), fo recl os e Dall m an ’s ch a l l e n g e t o sp eci al co nd it io n (m ). In bo th cas es

, th e

de fen da nt arg ue d— li ke Dall m an —t ha t “ th e co nd it io ns of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e are

i l l eg al be cau se th ey are ge ne ric co nd it io ns im po se d wit ho ut reg ard to th e sp ec i f i c

ch arac te ris ti cs of hi s cri m e as req ui red by 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d ).” Bi ll io t, 78 5 F.3 d at

12 69 (q uo ti ng An d i s

, 3 3 3 F .3d at 88 8)

. In And is

, we he ld th at th e im po si ti on of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e co nd it io ns al le ge dl y im po se d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d )

di d no t in vo lv e an il le g a l s e n t e n c e or m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce so as to ov erco m e an

a p pe al waiv er. 33 3 F.3 d at 89 2– 94

. W e fo ll owe d th is ho ld in g m or e rece n t l y i n

Bi ll io t i n d ecl in in g t o re vi ew a co nd it io n o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e. 78 5 F .3d at 1 26 9.

Last y ear in Uni te d St at es v. Terry, 69 2 Fed

. App x. 31 8 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 1 7 )

, we

di sm is se d an ap pe al ch al le ng in g se ve ral sp eci al co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e,

in cl ud in g on e ne arl y id en ti cal to th e co nd it io n Dall m an is ch al le ng in g. W e do no t se e

ho w Dall m an ’s cas e co m pe ls a di ffer e n t r e su lt fro m th e on e in And is or in Terry.

“ W he re a de fen da nt

. . . do es no t cl ai m th at he fai le d to en te r in to an ap pe al waiv er

kn owi n gl y an d vo lu nt ari ly, or th at th e su pe rv is ed rel eas e co nd it io ns co ns ti tu te d a

m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce be cau se th ey were ba se d on so m e co ns ti tu ti on al ly

im pe rm is si bl e fact or

, su ch as race

, th e co nd it io ns are no t su bjec t to r e v i ew on

ap pe a l

. ” And is

, 33 3 F.3 d at 89 4. Nor is th e te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e it se lf

rev ie wab le un de r th e te rm s of th e ap pe al waiv er be cau se it is no t an il le ga l “ se nt en ce

im po se d i n e xc es s o f th e st at ut or y m ax im um .”

-5

-B. Ev e n i f thi s ap pea l w ere no t ba rred by the ap pea l w ai ve r,

Dal lman is no t enti tle d to rel ie f beca us e the di st ri ct co urt di d

no t ab us e it s di sc reti on

.

Eve n if th e ap pe al waiv er di d no t fo recl os e Dall m an ’s ap pe al

, he wou ld no t be

en ti tl ed to rel ie f. U n d e r t h e su pe rv is ed rel eas e st at ut e, a di st ric t co ur t m ay im po se

sp eci al co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e if th e co nd it io ns are reas on ab ly rel at ed to th e

se nt en ci ng fact or s se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), in vo lv e no gr eat er de pr iv at io n of

li be rty t ha n is reas on ab ly n eces sa ry fo r th e pu r p o s e s s e t fo rth in § 35 53 (a), an d are

co nsi ste nt w ith an y pe rt in en t po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is sion.

18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d ). Wh e n r e vi ewin g a sp eci al co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e,

“ [w ]e l o o k to whe th er th ere was ev id en ce ‘the de fen da nt di d m or e th an m erel y

po ss es s c h i l d po rn og rap hy’ an d whe th er th e res tri ct io n am ou nt s to a to ta l ba n on

in te rn et an d co m

pu te r us e.” Uni te d St at es v. Koc h, 62 5 F.3 d 47 0, 48 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )

(q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Ris ti ne , 33 5 F .3d 69 2, 6 96 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3) ).

Thi s is no t a cas e in vo lv in g m ere po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy. Alt ho ug h

on ly on e vi de o co nt ai ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy was fo un d on Dall m an ’s co m pu te r, hi s

u s e of co m

pu te rs an d th e in te rn et was jus ti fia bl y co nc ern in g to th e di st ric t c o u r t

.

Dall m an us ed th e in te rn et to st eal an ot he r pe rs on ’s id en ti ty so th at he co ul d av oi d hi s

res po ns ib il it y to reg i s t e r as a se x of fen de r. Thro ug h su ch effo rts

, Dall m an

su cces s f ul ly ev ad ed th e reg is tra ti on req ui rem en t fo r y ears

. The di st ric t co ur t

qu es ti on ed “ why he ’s tryin g so ha rd to av oi d hi s res po ns ib il it y to reg is te r .” The

pr es en ce of th e ch il d po rn og rap hy, th e un us ua ll y co m pl ex or ga ni zat io n of Dall m an ’s

co m pu te r (cl earl y de si gn ed to ren de r se arch m or e di ffi cu lt ), an d Dall m an ’s co m pu te r

so ph is ti cat io n al l de m on st rat e th at he po se s a si gn ifi can t m on it or in g ch al le ng e to hi s

su pe rv is in g pr ob at io n of

fic er. See id

. (n ot in g th at th e de fen da nt was a so ph is ti cat ed

co m pu te r us er).

-6

-Eve n th ou gh th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at it was m or e di ffi cu lt to tra ck an

of fen de r’s co m

pu te r us e th an it was to te ll hi m “ jus t do n’t h a ve a co m

pu te r[,]”

sp eci al co nd it i o n (m ) is no t a co m pl et e ba n on co m

pu te rs or in te rn et -co nn ect ed

el ect ro ni cs

. The sp eci al co nd it io n al lo ws us e of co m pu te r te ch no lo gy if ap pr ov ed by

a pr ob at io n of

fic er “ who wil l ha ve th e gu id an ce of ou r cas e la w, whi ch reco gn iz es th e

im po rta nc e of co m

pu t e rs an d in te rn et acce ss fo r ed uc at io n, em pl oym en t, an d

co m m un ic at io n, whe n co ns id eri ng [Dal lm an ’s] req ue st s.” 6 2 5 F

. 3 d at 48 2. The

di st ric t co ur t al so sp eci fic al ly ad dr es se d Dall m an ’s co nc ern s by ta il or in g sp eci al

co nd it io n (m ) to in st r u c t th e pr ob at io n of fic e to be co op erat iv e wit h hi s rel ig io us

effo rts an d di sc ret io na ry in al lo win g on li ne co m m un ic at io ns wit h fam il y

. The di st ric t

co ur t d id no t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y im po si ng sp eci al co nd it io n (m).

II I. Con cl us io n

Bec au se th e ap pe al waiv er kn owi ng ly an d vo lu nt ari ly en te red in to by Dall m an

pr ev e n t s t h i s co ur t fro m rev ie win g th e co nd it io ns of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e, we

di sm is s h is ap pe al

.

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

-7

-