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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. C OLEM AN LOUIS PAYNE,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-50223

D.C . No. 3:16-c r-02666-JAH-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. Houston, Distric

t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 9, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , M . SM ITH, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. C ole m an Payne a

p p e a ls the se nte nc e of 80 m onths in c ustody and se v e n y e ars supe rvise d re le a se following his guilty ple a to one c ount of re c e i pt of c hild pornogra phy in viola t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252(a )(2). 

# FIL ED OCT 15 2018 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

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

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Payne first c onte nds tha t the distric t

c ourt c om

m itte d a proc e d

ura l e rror by infe rring tha

t a ll his c hat room

visits we re for purpose s of e xc ha nging or disc ussing
c hild pornogra

phy . Payne a dm itte d he e nte re d the c hat room

se ve ra l tim e s a

we e k to disc uss pe dophilia

fanta sie s , a

nd the visits e xte nde d ove r se ve ra l m onths. The distric t c o urt ne ve r state d tha t a ll of the visits we re re late d to c hild pornogra phy , and the re c ord re fle c ts tha t a proportion of the

visits m ust ha ve be e n re late d. Ac c ordingly , the se nte nc e wa s not ba se d on the a dve rse infe re nc e tha t a ll of Payne ’ s c hat room

visits involve d c hild pornogra phy , a n d the re wa s no proc e dura l
e rror. Payne a lso c h a lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s im position of thre e spe c ia l
c onditions of re l e a se . Two re stric tions - no c onta c t with m inors a nd not loitering
ne ar m inors - we re c le a

r in the ir m e aning a

nd a ppropria t e ly re late d to the sta

tutory goa ls of re ha

bilita tion a nd prote c ting the public from c rim e s sim ila

r to tha t of whic h Payne ha d b e e n c onvic te d. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ); Unite d State s v . Danie ls , 541 F.3d 915, 928 (9th C ir. 2008); Unite d State s v . Stote rau , 524 F.3d 988, 1008 (9th C ir. 2008). The distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in im posing the se spe c ia l c onditions of re le a se . The re stric tion on a c c e ss to the inte rne t, howe ve r, m a

y re a c h too broa d ly

in light of the

va rie ty of de vic e s a

n d situa tions to whic h it m ight a

pply a s writte n. W e the re fore re m and for the distric t
2c ourt to c la

rify tha t the first se nte nc e of the re s tric tion is a im e d at de vic e s tha t ha ve the c a pa c ity to a c c e ss c hild pornogra

phy
. As to the fa m ily

re sponsibilitie s sta

nda rd c ondition, the

pa rtie s a gre e tha

t the
c ondition should not ha

v e be e n inc lude d in Pa

yne ’ s se nte nc e . W e the re fore a lso
re m and for the distric t c ourt to strike the fa m ily

re sponsibilitie s sta

nda rd c ondition from Payne ’ s c onditions of supe rvise d re le a se . AFFIRM E D in par t and RE M ANDE D in par t .

3