N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. KARL M O DDER

M AN, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-17374

D.C . No. 4:11-c r-02726-R C C
DTF-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R ane r C . C ollins, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

6, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FR IEDM AN, ** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda nt Ka rl M odde rm an c ha lle nge s the im position of thre e spe c ia l
c onditions tha

t a pply to his life tim e te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se , whic h will follow the 1 20 m onths’ im

p risonm e nt tha

t he is now se rving for posse s sion of c hild



# FIL E D JUL 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion 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

b le Pa ul L. Frie dm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of C olum

bia , sitting by

de signa t ion.pornogra

phy in viola t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(a )(5)(B ) and (b)(2). De fe nda nt did not c ha lle nge the c onditions a t his se nte nc ing he aring. Ne arly a y e ar late r, proc e e ding pro se , De fe nda nt file d a m o tion for c orre c tion of c le ric a l m ista ke s pursua nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 36. Afte r the distric t c ourt de nie d that m o tion, this c ourt issue d a n orde r c onstruing De fe nda nt’ s R ule 36 m otion a s a pe tition under 28 U.S.C . § 2255, pre m ise d on a c la im tha t the spe c i fie d

c onditions viola te due proc e ss. W e va c a te this c ourt’ s Se pte m be r 17, 2013 orde r c o nstruing the R ule 36
m otion a s a

§ 2255 pe tition, va c a te the distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of the R

ule 36
m otion, a nd re m and to the distric t c ourt for furthe r proc e e dings. On re m and, the distric t c o urt m

ust inform

De fe nda n t of the c onse que nc e s of re c ha ra c te riz ing his R ule 36 m otion a s a

§ 2255 pe tition a

nd m ust give him

an opportunity

to withdra

w or am e nd the m otion pursua nt to theproc e dure s outline d in C a stro v. Unite d State s, 540 U.S. 375, 382 (2003). If, afte r re c e iving theC a s tro wa rnings, De fe n da

nt wishe s to proc e e d, the distric t c ourt m ust re c h ara c te riz e the R

ule 36 m o tion a s a § 2255 pe tition. W e e xpre s s no opinion on the m e rits of De fe nda nt’ s c ha lle nge or on the que stion whe the r that

c ha lle nge wa s proc e dura lly de fa ulte d. B ut we note tha

t, in the N inth C irc uit, a

de fe n da nt c annot, through a ple a

a gre e m e nt, wa ive the right to
2c ha lle nge a

se nte nc e tha

t viola te s the C onstitution. Unite d State s v. W a tson, 582 F.3d 974, 977 (9th C ir. 2009). W e a lso note , for the be ne fit of the distric t c ourt on re m and, tha t the gove rnm e nt ha s c onc e de d the following e ithe r in its brie fing to this c ourt or a t ora l
argum e nt: (1) with re spe c t to Spe c ia l C ondition 12, the se n te nc ing c o urt did not
e xpla in the ne e d for the e xte nsive c urta ilm e nt of libe rty inhe re nt in a

life tim e c urfe w; (2) with re spe c t to Spe c ia l C ondition 13, it is ove rbroa d to re quire the
we aring of unde rga

rm e nts a nd a ppropria te oute r c lothing " a t a ll tim e s . . . in the hom e ," re ga

rdle ss of the pre se nc e of othe rs; a nd (3) with re spe c t to Spe c ia l C ondition 18, it is not c le ar whic h re lationships a re suffic ie ntly

" e m otiona l ly
c lose ," " rom antic ," or " intim a te " to trigge r the disc losure re quire m e nt. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

3