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

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 5- 37 87

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

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ja so n B ran do n S ch ul tz

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l 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 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Ft. Do dg e

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 16
Fil ed : J an ua ry

10 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, MELLOY , and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ja so n Bran do n Sch ul tz ch al le ng es th ree sp eci al co nd it i o ns of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d whe n se nt en ci ng hi m on a s up erv is ed rel eas e 1

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.r e v o c a t i o n to 22 m on th s im pr is on m en t to be fo ll owe d by on e y ear of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e. W e aff

irm.

I.

In Octo be r 20 07

, Sch ul tz was co nv ic te d in Mar y la nd st at e co ur t of th ird -d eg ree

se xu al ass au lt . This co nv ic ti on st em m ed fro m a co ns en su al rel at io ns hi p wi th a 14

-

y ear- ol d gi rl whe n Sch ul tz was 23 y ears of ag e

. Und er fed eral la w, Sch ul tz was

req ui red to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r in hi s st at e of res id en ce. In N o v e mber 20 08

, Sch ul tz was res id in g in Io wa wit ho ut ha vi ng reg is te red as a se x of fen de r in th at st at e.

As a res ul t, he pl ed gu il ty to fai li ng to reg is te r as a se x of fen de r, an d th e di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ced hi m to 3 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t to be fo ll owe d by 5 y ears of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e. He be ga n h is su pe rv is ed rel eas e te rm in Ju ne 20 11

.

In Decem

be r 20 12

, th e di st ric t co ur t rev ok ed Sch ul tz ’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e
ba se d on m

ul ti p l e vi ol at io ns , in cl ud in g fai lu re to co m pl y wit h res id en ti al reen try

cen te r ru le s, di so rd erl y co nd uc t, ex ces si ve us e of al co ho l, an d us e of il le ga l dr ug s.
The co ur t se nt en ced Sch ul tz to 21 m on th s im pr is on m en t to be fo ll owe d by 3 y ears of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

Afte r hi s rel eas e, Sch ul tz ag ai n vi ol at ed th e te rm s of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e by

as so ci at in g wit h pe rs on s in vo lv ed in cri m in al act iv it y an d ha vi ng co nt act wit h

ch il dr en un de r th e ag e of 18

. As a res ul t, th e di st ric t co ur t m od ifi ed th e te rm s of th e

su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d o rd ered Sch ul tz to ser ve two co ns ecu ti ve week en ds in jail

.

In Nov em

be r 20 15

, t h e di st ric t co ur t ag ai n rev ok ed Sch ul tz ’s su pe rv is ed

rel eas e. At th e rev oc at io n he ari ng , Sch ul tz ad m it te d he us ed co cai ne , twi ce fai le d to

su bm it a ur in e s a mple fo r te st in g, an d po ss es se d co cai ne

. The di st ric t co ur t al so

fo un d Sch ul tz ha d e ng ag ed in co cai ne di st rib ut io n. Th e co ur t s en te nc ed Sch ul tz to

22 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t t o b e fo ll owe d b y 1 year of su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

-2

-As pa rt of th e se nt en ce, th e co ur t im po se d th ree s p e c i al co nd it io ns of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

. Sp eci al Co nd it io n 4 pr oh i b i te d Sch ul tz

“ fro m own in g or ha vi ng in hi s po ss es si on an y po rn og rap hi c mat e r i a ls ” or fro m

“ en te r[i ng ] an y es ta bl is hm en t whe re po rn og rap hy or e ro ti ca can be ob ta in ed or
vi ewed .” Sp eci al Co nd it io n 5 di rect ed Sch ul tz to m ak e an y co m pu te r or ele ct ro ni c
de vi c e s a v a il ab le fo r se arch or m on it or in g by a Uni te d St at es pr ob at io n of fic er. Sp eci al Co nd it io n 6 pr oh ib it ed Sch ul tz fro m ha vi ng co nt act wit h an y ch il dr en un de r

th e ag e o f 18 wit ho ut pri or writ te n c on se nt of t he pro ba ti on off ic e.

Ea c h o f t h e se co nd it io ns ha d be en pa rt of th e or ig in al se nt en ce an d th e fir st

rev oc at io n se nt en ce. At th e la te st rev oc at io n he ari ng , Sch u lt z on ly ob jecte d to Sp eci al Co nd it io n 6, arg ui ng fo r a c h a ng e in th at co nd it io n be cau se he ha d a on ey ear- ol d so n wit h who m he de si red reg ul ar co nt act

. In res po ns e to th e ob jecti on , th e
di st ric t co ur t ad de d to Sp eci al Co nd it io n 6 th at “ [t]he Uni te d St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce
wil l work wit h y ou an d y ou r fam il y to se t up su pe rv is ed co m m un ic at io ns an d vi si ts

wit h y ou r bi ol og ic al a n d le ga ll y ad op te d ch il dr en .” Sch ul tz no w ap pe al s th e th ree

sp eci al co nd it io ns

.

II.

Gen eral ly, we rev ie w “ th e im po si ti on of sp ec i a l c o n di ti on s fo r ab us e of

di sc ret io n, bu t whe n a de fen da nt ha s fai le d to pr op erl y ob ject to th e im

po si ti on of th e

co nd it io n at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng ,” we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. Uni t e d S t at es v.

Ro be rts

, 68 7 F.3 d 10 96

, 11 00 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). The refo re, we wil l rev ie w th e di st ric t

co ur t’s co nt i n ua ti on of Sp eci al Co nd it io ns 4 an d 5 fo r pl ai n erro r an d th e

co nt in ua ti on , wit h m od ifi cat io n, o f Sp eci al Co nd it io n 6 for ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

“ To ob ta in rel ie f un de r a pl ai n- erro r st an da rd of rev ie w, th e pa rty se ek in g rel ie f

m us t sh ow th at th ere was an erro r, th e erro r is cl ear or ob vi ou s un de r cu rren t la w, th e

erro r affe ct ed th e pa rty’ s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d th e erro r se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s,

-3

-in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d St at es v. Po it ra, 64 8

F.3 d 8 84 , 88 7 (8 th Cir . 20 11 ).

A di st ric t co ur t ha s br oa d di sc ret io n to or de r sp eci al co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e so lo ng as “ 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 [1 8 U.S.C.] § 35 53 (a), in vo lv e no gr eat er de pr iv at i o n o f l i be rty th an is

reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry fo r th e pu rp os es se t fo rth in § 35 53 (a), an d are co ns is te nt wit h

an y pe rti ne nt po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on .” U nit ed St at es

v. Mo rai s, 67 0 F.3 d 88 9

, 8 95 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); se e al so 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d )(1 )-(3 ).

As to Sp eci al Co nd it io n 4, Sch ul tz arg ue s th e co nd it io n is no t reas on ab ly

rel at ed to hi s cri m e an d th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co nd uc t an in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry

be fo re im po si ng th is co nd it io n. Fu rth er, he arg ue s th e pr ov is io ns are ov erb ro ad an d

va gu e, su ch th at he ha s no cl ear no ti ce as to wha t he can vi ew or wha t bu si ne ss es he

can en te r wit ho ut vi ol at in g h is su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

W he n th e di st ric t co ur t fir st se nt en ced Sch ul tz

, it no te d “ a nu m be r of th in gs

. . . of co nc ern , . . . th e two m os t seri ou s” be in g hi s co nv ic ti on fo r se xu al co nt act wit h a

m in or fem al e an d hi s th ree co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol at in g a no -co nt act or de r as to a m in or

fem al e. The co ur t no te d t h e r e “s e e m s to be a pa tt ern of in te res t in in ap pr op ria te ly

ag ed fem al es .” W it ho ut ob jecti on , th e co ur t im

po se d Sp eci al Co nd it io n 4 at th e

or ig in al se nt en ci ng an d rei m po se d th e co n d i t i o n a t th e rev oc at io n se nt en ci ng

. W e
ho ld Sch ul tz ha s no t sh own th e di st ric t co ur t pl ai nl y erre d in im po si ng th is co nd it io n.

At th e or ig in al se nt en ci ng , th e co ur t ex pr es se d it s co nc ern a b ou t Sch ul tz ’s pr io r

se xu al in vo l ve m en t wit h un de rag ed fem al es an d in di cat ed he ha d de ve lo pe d a

“ pa tt ern ” of in ap pr op ria te be ha vi or in th at reg ard

. As we ha ve pr ev io us ly he ld

, “ th e

ne ed to pr ot ect ch il dr en fro m fu tu re ex pl oi ta ti on ” jus ti fie s ba nn in g a de fen da nt “ fro m

po ss es si ng an y po rn og rap hy.” See Uni te d St at es v. Mef fo rd

, 71 1 F.3 d 92 3, 92 7 (8 th

Ci r. 20 13 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s omi t t e d ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ri st in e, 33 5

F.3 d 69 2, 69 4- 95 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 )). Fu rth er, aft er rev ie win g th e reco rd

, we co nc lu de

-4

-th e co nd it io n is ap pr op ria te ly ta il or ed to Sch ul tz ’s ci rcu m st an ces in li gh t of h is

or ig in al se x offe ns e an d th e co ur t’s fin di ng of a “ pa tt ern ” of in ap pr op ria te be ha vi or

to ward s m in or s. Add it io na ll y , we ha ve pr ev io us ly rejected th e ov erb read th ch al le ng e
Sch ul tz m ak es he re. See id

. at 92 8 (rejec ti ng ov erb read th ch al le ng e whe re th e sp eci al

co nd it io n ba nn ed th e de fen da nt fro m “ en te r[i ng ] a n y l o cat io n whe re po rn og rap hy,

ero ti ca, or ad ul t en te rta in m en t can be o bt ai ne d or vi ewed ” (al te rat io n in or ig in al )).

Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t err in im po si ng Sp eci al Co nd it io n 4

. Fo r th e

sa m e reas on s, we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s im po si ti on of Sp eci al Co nd it io n 5, whi ch

do es n ot pr oh ib it Sch ul tz ’s acce ss to co m pu te rs , rat he r it on ly al lo ws th e Uni te d

St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce th e ab il it y to m on it or hi s co m pu te r us ag e. Thi s co nd it io n is

reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry to m on it or whe th er Sch ul tz is vi ol a t i n g th e po rn og rap hy

res tri ct io n an d to m on it or whe th er Sch ul tz is vi ol at in g th e res tri ct io n co nc ern in g hi s

co nt act wit h m in or s— a res tri ct io n he has ha d di ffi cu lt y co m pl y in g with in th e p as t.

Sch ul tz on ly ob

jecte d to th e im

po si ti on an d te rm s of S p e c i a l Co nd it io n 6,

whi c h p r oh ib it s hi m fro m ha vi ng co nt act wit h an y m in or ch il dr en wit ho ut writ te n

co ns en t fro m th e pr ob at io n of fic e. Due to co nc ern s Sch ul tz ex pr es se d ab ou t hi s
de si r e to m ai nt ai n co nt act wit h hi s in fan t so n, th e di st ric t co ur t ad de d la ng ua ge
di rect in g th e pr ob at io n of fic e to “ wor k wit h [Sch ul tz ] an d [h is ] fam il y to se t up

su pe rv is ed co m

m un ic at io ns an d vi si t s wit h [h is ] bi ol og ic al an d le ga ll y ad op te d

ch il dr en .”

Sch ul tz arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in im po si ng th is sp eci al

co nd it io n be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t m ak e in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry in to th e ne ed

to pr ev en t Sch ul tz fro m ha vi ng co nt act wit h h i s own ch il dr en

. Fu rth er, Sch ul tz

cl ai m s th e res tri ct io n is no t na rro wly ta il or ed to m eet th e co ns id erat io ns of § 35 53 (a).

W e ad dr es se d a si m il ar ch al le ng e in Uni te d St at es v. Si m on s, 61 4 F.3 d 47 5 (8 th

Ci r. 20 10 ). The re a de fen da nt

, who li ke Sch ul tz was co nv ic te d of fai li ng to reg is te r

as a se x of

fen de r, ch al le ng e d th e sp eci al co nd it io n pr oh ib it in g hi m fro m ha vi ng

-5

-co nt act wit h c h i l d r e n u n de r th e ag e of 18

, in cl ud in g hi s own ch il dr en , un le ss th e

co nt a ct was ap pr ov ed in ad va nc e by th e de fen da nt ’s pr ob at io n of fic er. Id

. at 48 1.

W e up he ld th e sp eci al co nd it io n, no ti ng , “ [i]n m an y of ou r cas es affi rm in g no -co nt act

co nd it io ns , we ha ve ci te d a de fen da nt ’s hi st or y of se xu al ab us e of m in or s as a fact or

in ou r de ci si on s.” Id

. Loo ki ng at Sch ul tz ’s pe rs o n a l h is to ry , he was or ig in al ly

co nv ic te d in st at e co ur t of ha vi ng a se xu al rel at io ns hi p wit h a 14 -y ear- ol d gi rl whe n
he was 23 y ear s of ag e. At th e or ig in al se nt en ci ng , t he di st ric t co ur t to ok no ti ce of

th e pr io r co nv ic ti on an d co nv ic ti on s fo r vi ol at in g no -co nt act or de rs wit h ot he r m in or

fem al es

.

In li gh t of th is h i s t o r y a n d th e di st ric t co ur t’s reco gn it io n of th e ne ed fo r
Sch ul tz to m ai nt ai n a rel at io ns hi p w i th hi s ch il dr en , th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e

in di vi du al iz ed fin di ng s an d th e res tri ct io n i s n a rro wly ta il or ed to ad dr es s th e
ci rcu m st an ces of Sch ul tz ’s cri m in al hi st or y as well as hi s fam il y si tu at io n.

Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t c o u r t d id no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in im po si ng Sp eci al

Co nd it io n 6

.

III.

W e aff irm th e se nt en ce.

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

-6

-