Opinion ID: 3062268
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Original Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing

Text: In April 2006, Defendant pled guilty to inducing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct to produce child pornography and transporting child pornography in foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and 2252(a)(1), respectively. These convictions stemmed from Defendant having convinced a German mother (through the internet, a telephone call, and one visit to the United States) to allow her ten-year old son to come live with Defendant in Florida based on Defendant’s suggestion that it would be in the child’s best interest to get an education in the United States. Sadly for the boy, Defendant was actually interested in sexually exploiting him. In fact, after the boy began living with Defendant, the latter either enticed or coerced him to pose nude in a sexually 2 Case: 15-11921 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 3 of 11 explicit way while Defendant took photographs. Defendant then sent these photographs via the internet to a computer in Germany. The district court sentenced Defendant to 135 months’ imprisonment—the low end of his applicable guideline—followed by three years’ supervised release. In addition to imposing the standard conditions of supervised release, the court also imposed several special conditions, including that Defendant participate in a mental health program as directed by the probation officer and that Defendant not be allowed computer or internet access without approval from the probation officer. Defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence. B. Motions to Modify Terms and Conditions of Supervised Release In January 2013, while still incarcerated, Defendant filed a pro se motion to modify the terms and conditions of supervised release. He asked the district court to delete the condition prohibiting the use of a computer or accessing the internet without approval from the probation officer. He argued that such restriction was no longer necessary to protect the victim of his crimes or the public because he had been rehabilitated, as evidenced by his exceptionally good behavior while in prison, and had completed training to become a successful stock day trader. He further explained that he would need internet access with minimal or no spyware to be able to engage in his intended occupation as a day trader and the computer restriction would hamper his ability to pursue that line of work. The Government 3 Case: 15-11921 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 4 of 11 opposed this motion, questioning why Defendant had concentrated his rehabilitation efforts in an area that required access to computers, when Defendant well knew his computer use would be restricted. The district court denied this motion, and Defendant did not appeal. Shortly before Defendant’s release from prison, his probation officer petitioned the district court to modify the terms and conditions of Defendant’s supervised release to require him to participate “in a mental health program specializing in sex offender treatment approved by the probation officer.” The probation officer asserted that this modification was necessary because of the nature and circumstances of the offense, Defendant’s history and characteristics, the need to protect the public from future crimes by Defendant, and to provide correctional treatment. Specifically, the probation officer noted that Defendant had denied to his Bureau of Prisons’ case manager that he had committed the offense of conviction, but rather asserted that the boy had taken the naked pictures himself and then used Defendant’s email to send the pornographic pictures over the internet. The probation officer further noted that, while imprisoned, Defendant had initially expressed interest in sex offender treatment, leading to his transfer to a lower security prison. But upon arrival at the lower security prison, Defendant refused any treatment, stating that he had only agreed to treatment in order to get the transfer. Additionally, while incarcerated, Defendant had befriended two 4 Case: 15-11921 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 5 of 11 convicted sex offenders and provided false information to his case manager in an effort to relocate to Nevada upon his release, specifically claiming that he would be residing with a “cousin,” when in fact that person had no familial relationship with Defendant and never returned the probation officer’s calls about arranging for a home inspection. At the hearing on the above motion for modification of the conditions of supervised release, Defendant contested the district court’s authority to modify the conditions of supervised release, given that Defendant had not yet committed a supervised release violation. Further, he asserted that 18 U.S.C. § 3583 only allowed for modification of the supervised release condition if modification was related to the initial conditions and argued that psychosexual counseling was not related to the court’s condition requiring mental health treatment. The Government argued that § 3583(e)(2) allowed for modification at any time prior to the expiration or termination of supervised release and that, at any rate, psychosexual counseling was a provision applicable to the initial conditions because it is a type of mental health treatment. The district court granted the motion and modified Defendant’s conditions of supervised release to require him to participate “in a mental health program specializing in sex offender treatment approved by the probation officer.” It 5 Case: 15-11921 Date Filed: 10/14/2015 Page: 6 of 11 concluded that such a condition was reasonably related to Defendant’s history and characteristics, his need for treatment, and the need to protect the public from him.