N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. W ILLIAM LAW RENC E B ILLOW , AKA W illia m La wre n c e B illows, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 10-50486

D.C . No. 2:08-c r-00151-R T-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R obe rt J. Tim lin, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 11, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

nd B Y B EE, C irc u it Judge s, a nd B ENC IVENGO, Distric t Judge
. ** W illia m La w re nc e B illow a

ppe a ls his c onvic tions for viola tions of 18 U.S.C
. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (a )(5)(B ). B illow a lso c la i m s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of 

# FIL ED JUL 17 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble C athy Ann B e nc ive n go, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.c ounse l for fa iling to raise a Fourth Am e ndm e n t c l a im at tria l, a nd c ha lle nge s a spe c ia l c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se c onta i ne d

in his se nte nc e . The fa c ts a re known to the

pa rtie s. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e DISM ISS in pa

rt, DENY in pa

rt, a n d VAC ATE AND R

EM AND in pa

rt. W e re vie w B illow’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im de novo. Se e Unite d State s v . Hill , 459 F.3d 966, 970 (9th C ir. 2006). B illow c onc e de s tha t he did not ra ise his Fourth Am e ndm e n t

c la im in the form

of a m otion to suppre ss be fore the distric t c ourt. Thus, B illow’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c l a im is wa i ve d, se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 12(b)(3)(C ), (e ), and suc h a wa i ve r “ pla c e s the issue be y ond the sc o pe of our
a bility to re vie w for pla in e rror.” Unite d State s v . Murillo , 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th C ir. 2002). R

ule 12 provide s, howe v e r, a n e xc e ption suc h

tha t “ [f] or good
c a use , [we ] m ay

grant re lie f from

th[at] wa i ve r.” Fe d. R . C rim . P. 12(e ). Although B illow a s se rts tha

t ine ffe c tive a ssista

nc e of c ounse l provide s good c a use for fa iling to ra ise his Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im be fore the distric t c ourt, B illow ha s fa ile d to
satisfy his burde n

of showing ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l. W e a gre e with B illow’ s c onte ntion tha t the re c ord is suffic ie nt for us to de c ide his ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im
. Se e Unite d State s v . J e ronimo , 398 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th C ir. 2005), ov e r rule d on othe r

grounds by

Unite d State

s v . J ac obo C astillo , 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba n c )
. W e c onc lude tha

t 2B illow’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im

is without me rit. W

he re , a s he re ,

“ de fe nse c ounse l ’ s fa ilure to litiga te a Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im c om pe t e ntly is the princ ipa l a lle gat ion of ine ffe c tive ne ss, the de fe nda nt m ust . . . prove tha

t his Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im

is m e ritorious a

nd tha t the re is a

re a sona ble proba bility tha t the
ve rdic t would ha

ve be e n diffe re nt a

bse nt the e xc luda

ble e vide nc e in orde r to de m onstra

te a c tua l pre

judic e . ” K

imme l man v . Morrison , 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986). Eve n a ssum ing tha

t C ate gory

One of the se arc h wa

rrant fa ile d to sa

t isfy the pa rtic u la rity and bre a dth re quire m e nts, a n d tha t the inc orporat e d a ffidav it c a nnot be re lie d on to c ure any

de fic ie nc ie s, the e vide nc e obta ine d through the e xe rc ise of the s e arc h wa rran t would not ha

ve be e n prope rly

subje c t to e x c lusion a

t tria l. Se e Unite d State s v . Se ars , 411 F.3d 1124, 1128, 1130 (9th C ir. 2005). Like H ill , whe re “ the offic e rs we re ‘ m otiva te d by c onside ra tions of pra c tic a l ity rathe r tha

n by
a de s ire to e nga ge in indisc rim inate “ fishing,”we c a nnot sa y . . . tha t the offic e rs so a buse d the wa rrant’ s a uthority tha t the othe rwise va l id wa

rrant wa s tra

nsform e d into a ge ne ra l one , the re b y

re quiring a ll fruits to be

suppre sse d.’ ” Hill , 459 F.3d a t 977 (quoting Unite d S

t ate s v . Tamura , 694 F.2d 591, 597 (9th C ir. 1982)). Furthe r, “ [p] artia l suppre ssion is proper unde r [our] doc trine of se ve ranc e , whic h a llows [us] to ‘ strike from a wa rrant those portions tha

t a re inva lid a

nd pre s e rve those portions tha t sa tisfy the fourth a

m e ndm e nt.’ ” Se ars , 411 F.3d a t 31129 (quoting U nite d State s v . Gome z -Soto , 723 F.2d 649, 654 (9th C ir. 1984)).

“ Se ve ranc e m e ans tha

t ‘ [o] n ly those artic le s se iz e d

pursua nt to theinva lid portions
ne e d be suppre sse d.’ ” Id. at 1129 (quoting Gome z-Soto , 723 F.3d a

t 654). W e c annot sa y that the “ warrant is wholly la c k ing in pa

rtic ula rity ” or ha s “ se rious pa rtic u la rity de fe c ts.” Id. at

1129–30. M ore ove r, C ate gory Twe lve is a

n

“ ide ntifia ble portion[] of the wa

rran t [tha t is] suffic ie ntly

spe c ific an d pa

rtic ula r to support se ve ranc e .” Id. at 1130. Espe c ia lly sinc e the inc orporate d a ffida vit provide d a

fa c tua l ba sis for thene e d to ta ke the c om

pute rs off the pre m ise s for fore nsic e xam ination. Se e Hill , 459 F.3d a t 973–76. Thus, the

e vide nc e introduc e d
at B i llow’ s tria l wa s prope rly se iz e d pursua

nt to a va lid, se ve ra

ble portion of the
se arc h wa rrant, a nd a s suc h B illow’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im is without me rit
and he c annot e sta

blish ine ffe c tive a ssista

n c e of c ounse l. Se e K

imme lman , 477 U.S. at 375. The re fore , B i llow c annot show good c a use e xc using his waive r unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 12(e ). Se e Murillo , 288 F.3d a t 1135. W e DISM ISS B illow’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c l a im a s WAIVED unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 12(e ). B illow ha s brought a

n inde pe nde n t ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im for fa ilure to m ove to suppre ss be fore the distric t c ourt ba s e d on his Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im . The m e rits of tha t c la im is subsume d

in our disc ussion of 4B illow’ s Fourth Am e n dm e nt c la im . As disc usse d, we find tha t the re c ord is suffic i e nt for us to de te rm ine tha t B illow’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im is without me rit. S

e e K imme lman , 477 U.S. a

t 375; se e also J

e ronimo , 398 F.3d a

t 1156. W e DENY B illow’ s ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c o unse l c la im
. Fina lly , B illow c onc e de s tha t he did not obje c t be fore the distric t c ourt to his spe c ia l c onditions of supe rvise d re le a se , and tha

t, a s a re sult, wem

ust re vie w this
c la im for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Blink insop , 606 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th C ir. 2010); s e e also He n de r

son v . Unite d State

s , 133 S. C t. 1121, 1130–31 (2013).

“ [A] distric t c ourt ha s disc re tion to im pose spe c ia l c o nditions of supe rvise d
re le a se , ” subje c t to thelim ita tions of 18 U.S.C . § 3583(d). Unite d State s v . C ollins , 684 F.3d 873, 889 (9th C ir. 2012). B ut, “ [a ] se nte nc ing judgem ust e xpla in a se nte nc e suffic ie ntly to c om m unic ate ‘ that a

re a sone d de c i sion ha s be e n m a de ’ an d ‘ pe rm it m e aningful a ppe lla t e re vie w.’ ” Unite d State

s v . Rudd, 662 F.3d 1257, 1260 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba

nc )). The distric t c ourt “ n e e d not sta te at se n te n c ing the re a sons for im posing e a c h c o ndition of supe rvise d re le a s e ,” howe ve r, “ if it is appare nt from the re c o rd .” Id. at 1260–61. The burde n is on theGove rnm e nt, howe ve r, to e sta blish “ that a

pa rtic ula r c ondition of supe

rvise d re l e a se involve s no gre ate r

5de priva

tion of liberty tha

n is re a sona

bly ne c e ssa ry to se rve the goa l s of supe rvise d
re le a se . ” C

ollins , 684 F.3d a

t 889; se e also Rudd

, 662 F.3d a

t 1263. The re side nc y

re stric t ion a

t issuehe re is ide ntic a l to tha t in Rudd and pra c tic a lly

ide ntic a l to tha

t in C ollins
. S e e C o llins , 684 F.3d a

t 880; Rudd, 662 F.3d at 1259. He re , the distric t c ourt did not provide any spe c ific e xpla

nation for the re side nc y

re stric tion; thedistric t c o urt m e re ly re c ite d the spe c ia l c ondition into the re c ord. The distric t

c ourt did provide

som e ge ne ra l e xpla

nation a s to why B illow’ s punishm e nt wa s justifie d, but while the distric t c ourt’ s ge ne ra l sta te m e nts
m ight provide som e unde rly ing support for the re side nc y

re stric t ion, the y do not
c om e c lose to sa

tisfy i ng the re quire m e nt tha t the distric t judge “ e xpla in[] why the
. . . se ve re re side nc y re stric tions ‘ involve [d] no gre ate r de priva tion of liberty

tha n is
re a s ona bly ne c e ssa ry for the purpose s of supe rvise d re le a se .’ ” Se e C ollins , 684 F.3d at 891. Furthe rm ore , B illow’ s re side n c y re stric tion a ffe c ts substa

ntia l rights. Se e id. at 890. Thus, we

hold tha t the distric t c ourt c o m

m itte d pla in e rror. Se e He nde rson , 133 S. C t . at 1130–31. In sum , we DISM ISS a s WAIVED unde r Fe de ra l R ule of C rim ina l Proc e d ure 12(e ) B illow’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im , DENY B i llow’ s ine ffe c tive
a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im , a

nd VAC ATE Spe c ia l C o ndition No. 19 a n d REM A ND B illow’ s se nte n c e to the distric t c ourt “ t o provide the a ppropria te 6ana ly sis a

nd support for its im

pose d te rm s a

nd c o nditions of supe

rvise d re l e a se .” C ollins , 684 F.3d a

t 892. DISM I SSE D IN PART , DE NIE D IN PART , VACAT E D AND RE M A NDE D IN PART .

7