Opinion ID: 4556670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Gaming Console Condition

Text: Abbate contends that the special condition prohibiting his use or possession of “any gaming consoles” without prior permission is overly restrictive in violation of § 3583(d)(2). He argues that the condition involves a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary. Since he did not object at the hearing, we review for plain error. 29 Under this standard, we apply a four-prong test to determine if a trial court plainly erred. 30 Abbate must identify (1) a forfeited error, (2) that is 27 665 F.3d at 136. Although Miller was a plain error case, the court held it would have reached the same conclusion “[e]ven were [it] to review for an abuse of discretion.” Id. 28 United States v. Sealed Juvenile, 781 F.3d 747, 756 (5th Cir. 2015). 29 United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149, 152 (5th Cir. 2009). 30 United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415, 419 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 7 Case: 19-10797 Document: 00515531490 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 No. 19-10797 clear and obvious, and (3) that affected his substantial rights.31 If he satisfies those three requirements, we may, in our discretion, remedy the error, but “only if the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 32 The district court imposed a blanket ban on gaming consoles after Abbate lied about getting rid of his internet-capable PlayStation 4, in violation of his earlier supervised release condition that he not use or own any device that allows internet access. Abbate agrees that a prohibition on modern devices that rely on internet connection is appropriate. He only requests that we use our discretion to lessen the condition’s scope, such that it does not include consoles that cannot access the internet. We recently addressed a similar special condition in United States v. Montanez. 33 After Montanez pled guilty to a single count of enticement of a child, the district court imposed a condition restricting the use or possession of any gaming console. 34 On plain error review, we held that the condition was overbroad, and narrowed it to its commonsense construction: a prohibition on gaming consoles that allow internet communication. 35 31 Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 32 Id. (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993)) (quotation marks omitted). 33 797 F. App’x 145 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, No. 19-7998, 2020 WL 1906695 (U.S. Apr. 20, 2020). While an unpublished opinion issued after January 1, 1996 is not controlling precedent in our circuit, we may consider it as persuasive authority. See Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n. 7 (5th Cir. 2006). And, if we have found plain error in one case, we can infer plain error in another, factually analogous case. See, e.g., United States v. Lozano, 791 F.3d 535, 539 (5th Cir. 2015) (relying on precedent of finding plain error in similar cases in holding the district court committed plain error). 34 Id. at 146, 150. 35 Id. at 151–52. 8 Case: 19-10797 Document: 00515531490 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/18/2020 No. 19-10797 The district court’s obvious intent in imposing this special condition was to prevent Abbate from using a gaming console’s internet-access features. A ban on all gaming consoles does not achieve that purpose, and so, like in Montanez, we use our discretion to modify the special condition. 36 We narrow the condition to forbid Abbate from using or possessing any gaming console or device that allows for internet access without prior permission from the probation officer.