P u rsuan tt o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30946 Su m m ar y Cal endar 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. FR ED DANI EL M I LL ER D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 06- C R
- 160- 1 B e fo r e J O L LY , B E N AV ID E S , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * F red D an i elM i ll er app eal s t h e sentence i m p o se d b y t h e di st ri ctcourt f ol l ow i n g t h e revocat i on of hi s s u pervi sed rel e a se . H e argu es t h at th e di st ri ct court abu sed i t s di scr et i on i n i m posi n g speci alcon di t i on s of su pervi sed rel ease t hatr e quir e hi m t o und e r gops yc ho s e xua le va l uat i o n a nd p o t e nt i alt r e at m e nt and w hi c h re st r i c thi s abil i t y t o have c ont ac t w i t h chil dre n un dert he ageof 18. M ille rco n te n d s th a t t h e s p e c ia l co n d itio n s h a ve n o rea son ab l e r e la tio n s h ip to h is u n derl yi n g of

fen se of convi ct i on , i . e. , w i re f rau d, an d that t h ere i s no evi den ce United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30946

2 t hathe has a pr o pe ns i t y t o co m m i tf ut ur e se xua lof

fe ns e s . H e as s e r t s t hatt he sp ecial con d i ti on s a re no t rea son a b l y rel a ted to th e sen ten ci n g factor s set f orth i n 18 U . S. C . § 3583( d) , and i nvolve an unreas onabl e de privat i on o f l iber t y. T h i s c ou rtrevi ew s the i m posi t i on of di scr et i on ary cond i t i on s of sup ervi sed r e le a s e fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Un i t ed S t ate s v. F erguson , 3 6 9 F . 3 d 8 4 7 , 8 5 2 ( 5 th C i r . 2004) . “Adi st r i c tc our tabus es it s di sc r et i on if i t ba se s i t s dec i si on o n an erro r of l a w or acl ea rl y e rron eo u s a s s e s s m en t of the ev i d en ce.” Un i t ed S t ate s v . Ca stillo , 4 30 F. 3d2 30 , 2 38 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 5) (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c ita tio n o m itt e d). “Afa c tu a l f in d in gis n o t c le a r lye r r o n e o u s if it is p la u s ib le in l i gh t of the reco rdre a das a w h ole. ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Lo pez - Ur bi na , 434 F. 3d 7 5 0 , 7 6 6 -6 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Ad is tr ic t c o u r tm a yim p o s e a n yco n d itio n o f s u p e rv is e dre le a s e “it co n sid e rs to b e a p p ro p ria te ” so lon g a s ce rta in re q u ire m e n ts a re m e t. § 3 5 8 3 (d). T h e condit i on m u st be “ reasona bl y rel ated” t o on e of t h e f ol l ow i n g ( 1) t h e na t u re an d cha ract eri st i cs of t h e of fen se and t h e defen da n t, (2 ) th e deter rence of c r i m i nalco nduc t , ( 3) t he pr o t e c t i o n of t he publ i cf

r o m any f

ur t he rcr i m e s of

t he d e fe n d a n t , a n d( 4 ) t h e d e fe n d a n t ’ s c o r r e c t i o n a ln e e d s . § 3 5 8 3 ( d) ( 1 ) ; 1 8 U. S . C. § 355 3( a) ( 1) , (a) ( 2) ( B ) , (a) ( 2) ( C ) , (a) ( 2) (D ) . H ow ever, t h e condit i on cann oti m pose a n y “g rea ter d e p r iv a tion of l ib ertytha n i s rea son a b l y n ece ssa ry” t o p rom ote d e t e r r e n c e , p r o t e c tth e p u b li c fr o m t h e d e fe n d a n t , a n d a d v a n c e th e d e fe n d a n t ’s c o r r e c tio n a l n e e d s . S ee§ § 3 58 3( d) ( 2) , 3 55 3( a) ( 2) ( B) , ( a) ( 2) ( C) , ( a) ( 2) (D ) . The cond i t i on al so m u st be “ consi st en t w i t h an y perti n en tpol i cy st atem en t s i ssued b yth e S e n te n c in gC o m m is s io n .” § 3 5 8 3 (d )(3 ).

“Adi st ri ctcourt m ay i m pose sex- of fen der rel ated speci alcondit i on s w h en th e u n d e r ly in gco n v ic tio n w a s fo ra n o n -s e x u a l o ffe n s e u n d e rce r ta in ci rcu m stan ces.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. D eleon , 2 8 0 F . A p p ’ x3 4 8 , 3 5 1 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ),N o. 08- 30946

A lth o u gh an un pu bl i shed opi n i on i ssuedaf t er Jan u ary 1, 199 6 i s not 1 c o n tr o llin g p r e c e d e n t, it m a y b e co n s id e r e da s p e r s u a s iv e a u th o r ity . B al lard v . B u r to n , 4 4 4 F .3d 3 9 1 , 4 0 1 a n dn .7 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). 3 cer t . den i ed , 2009 W L 425156 ( Feb. 23, 2009) ( N o. 08- 8207) . Acour tal som ay 1 c ons i dert he def

endant ’ s pri orcr i m i nalbehavi orev en w her e the pr i orc r i m i nal c o n d u c td i dn o tl e a dt o ac o n v i c t i o n if t h a ti n f

o r ma t i o n wa s d e r iv e df r o m a r e lia b le s o u r c e . Id . Ap r e s e n te n c e re p o r t (P S R ) g e n e r a llyb e a r s s u ffic ie n t in d ic ia of r eli abi l i t y t o be c ons i der ed as evi denc e by a se nt enc i ng j udge w hen m aki ng a fa c tu a l d e te r m in a tio n . S e e Un i t e dSt a t e s v . R o me , 207 F . 3d251 , 254 ( 5th C i r. 20 00 ) . W he n a di s t r i c t c o ur t r e l i e s o n i nf o r m at i o n i n a PSR as evi den ce, “ t he d e fe n d a n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f d e m o n s tr a tin gth a t t h e in fo r m a tio n is u n r e lia b le or u n tru e.” I

d. I n t he i nst antc as e, t he PS R i dent i f i ed thatM i l l erpr evi ous l y w as convic t ed of

a chi l d sex of

fen se and m ore recently w as arrest ed f or l oi t eri n g f

or s e xfr o m ap e r s o n u n d e rth e a g e o f 1 8 . M i l l e rd idn o to bje c tto th e P S R ’s cha ract eri zati on of h i s pri or sex of fen se or present rebu t t alevi den ce t o est abli sh th a t his recen t arre st did n ot i n vo lve sex u a lcon d u ct. B eca u se M i l l er fail edto sh ow tha t th e P S R w a s u n reli a b l e or u n tru e, th e d i stric t cou rt w a s en titl edto r e ly u p o n th e P S R ’ s d e p ic tio n o f M ille r ’ s p a s t c r im in a l b e h a v io r . R o me , 207 F. 3d a t 2 5 4 . T h e re c o r dth e r e fo r e c o n ta in s s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e th a t M ille rp r e v io u s ly com m i t t ed a sexu alof fen se, an d M i l l er’ s past cond u cti s an ad equ ate basi s f or th e im p o s iti o n o f

s e x -o ffe n d e rs p e c ia l co n d itio n s . D eleon , 280 F. A pp’ x at351. T h u s, M i l l er has n otshow n t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtw rongly i m posedsex- of fen der s p e c ia l co n d itio n s fo llo w in gth e re v o c a tio n o f h is s u p e rv is e dre le a s e fo rh is unde r l yi ng c o nvi c t i o n o f w i r e f r aud . F u rt h erm ore, t h e parti cul ar spe c i alc o nditi o nsthatth e di st ri ctcourtopted t o i m pose are reasonab l y rel ate d t othea pp ropri ate s en t en ci n g fact ors an d d o not i nvolve a gr eat erdepr ivat i on o f l iber t y t han i s r eas onably nec es sa r y t o a c hi eve th e p oli cyo bj ectives of § 3 5 8 3 (d)( 2 ). T h e con d i ti on s sp ecif i ca l l y a re inten d edtoN o. 08- 30946

4 ad dress M i l l er’ s h i st ory of sex of fen ses an d the n eed to protec tt h e pu bl i c f rom f ur t he r c r i m i nal ac t ivit y. The c o ndit i o ns al s o t o s e rve M i l l e r ’ s c o r r e c t i o nalne e ds a n da c t t o d e te rp o te n tia l re c id iv is m . M o r e o v e r , th e co n d itio n s a r e p r o p e r ly ci rcu m scribed to pre ve n t an u n rea son a b le i m p ositi on on M i l l er’ s l ib erty i n t erest s. Th i s c ou rtprevi ou sly h as up h el d m ore onerous rest ri ct i on s t h an t h ose a t is s u e inth e in s ta n t c a s e . Uni t e d St at e s v . Paul , 274 F . 3d155 , 164
- 65 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is A F F IR M E D .