Opinion ID: 186687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Terms of Supervised Release

Text: 42 Sullivan also challenges the conditions of supervised release, focusing on the conditions that (1) restrict his use of computer and Internet services, (2) require him to have approval from the Probation Office before having any contact with minors, and (3) forbid his possession of sexually stimulating material and video equipment. He asserts that these conditions were unlawfully imposed, because they were not listed as suggested conditions of release in either the 2002 Sentencing Guidelines or the PSR and he received no other advance notice that the court might impose them, as allegedly required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(C). Appellant also contends that the conditions are inconsistent with the statutory factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000), which the court was bound to consider in issuing non-mandatory (or special) terms of supervised release, see id. § 3583(d), and that the District Court never substantiated the need for the disputed conditions. Applying the applicable plain error standard of review, we find none of these arguments persuasive. 43 Our analysis of appellant's sentencing arguments turns on his failure to lodge any objections with the District Court. Appellant and his counsel stood in the sentencing judge's presence, listened to the specific terms of the sentence, and yet voiced no objections to any alleged lack of advance notice or opportunity to comment on the proposed conditions, or to the substance of the terms of supervised release. When a defendant fails to raise a timely objection with the District Court, we review arguments introduced on appeal for plain error. United States v. Simpson, 430 F.3d 1177, 1183 (D.C.Cir.2005). To prevail, an appellant must show that the District Court committed (1) a legal error that was (2) plain (a term that is synonymous with clear or obvious), and that (3) affected the appellant's substantial rights. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). If all three conditions are met, we retain discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 735-36, 113 S.Ct. 1770. 44 Appellant first contends that, because the challenged conditions of supervised release were not listed as mandatory or discretionary conditions in the applicable Sentencing Guidelines, the District Court's imposition of the conditions sua sponte violated Rule 32. Under Rule 32, a sentencing court must allow the parties' attorneys to comment on the probation officer's determinations and other matters relating to an appropriate sentence. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(i)(1)(C). Imposing conditions that were never forecast to a defendant, appellant argues, runs afoul of this requirement. We need not decide this question, because even if it was error for the District Court to impose the disputed conditions without giving advance notice to Sullivan, it most certainly was not reversible error under the plain error rule. 45 Sullivan's argument that the District Court committed error in failing to give him advance notice of the conditions of supervised release rests on a purported analogy to Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991). The Court in Burns held that, before a district court can depart upward on a ground not identified as a ground for upward departure either in the presentence report or in a prehearing submission by the Government, Rule 32 requires that the district court give the parties reasonable notice that it is contemplating such a ruling. This notice must specifically identify the ground on which the district court is contemplating an upward departure. Id. at 138-39, 111 S.Ct. 2182. As the Court explained, it makes no sense to impute to Congress an intent that a defendant have the right to comment on the appropriateness of a sua sponte departure but not the right to be notified that the court is contemplating such a ruling. Id. at 135-36, 111 S.Ct. 2182. Importantly, the Court made it clear that, [b]ecause the question of the timing of the reasonable notice required by Rule 32 is not before us, we express no opinion on that issue. Rather, we leave it to the lower courts, which, of course, remain free to adopt appropriate procedures by local rule. Id. at 139 n. 6, 111 S.Ct. 2182. It is also significant that the Burns decision does not involve an application of the plain error rule. Appellant apparently recognizes that Burns does not control the disposition of this case. Nonetheless, appellant invites us to broadly embrace the logic of Burns in a case in which review is controlled by the plain error standard. We decline the invitation. 46 In support of his position, appellant invokes United States v. Wise, 391 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir.2004), in which the Ninth Circuit reversed conditions of supervised release that restricted the defendant's contact with children (including her own), and prohibited her from possessing pornography or sexually stimulating material. Id. at 1030-31. The court ruled that notice was a necessary antecedent to those restrictions, and that it is not enough first to impose the sentence, and then to invite counsel to comment, at least where counsel objects as occurred here. Id. at 1033 (emphasis added). The instant case is quite different from Wise, because the appellant here did not raise an objection with the District Court. If appellant's counsel had objected, he could have sought more time to prepare an adequate response. If that request had been denied, we would have been in a position to decide whether to embrace the reasoning of Wise. 47 The Tenth Circuit has applied the principles of Burns in connection with a matter involving supervised release in United States v. Bartsma, 198 F.3d 1191, 1194 (10th Cir.1999). The defendant there pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was required, as a condition of supervised release, to register as a sex offender because his criminal history, among other things, reflected prior convictions for rape and child molestation. Although the defendant did not object to this condition until the case was heard on appeal, the court nonetheless held that the Burns rationale applies when a district court is considering imposing a sex offender registration requirement as a special condition of supervised release, and the condition is not on its face related to the offense charged. Id. at 1199-1200. The Tenth Circuit evidently was concerned about the glaring disjunction between the crime of conviction and the nature of the conditions of release. Indeed, the court expressly disclaimed any intent to create a rule . . . requiring notice prior to the imposition of every special condition of supervised release, restricting its holding to the unique facts of the case it decided. Id. at 1200 n. 7. The instant case does not involve a disjunction between the crime and the conditions of release, so Bartsma gives little support to appellant's position. 48 Finally, the Fifth Circuit has held that, under Rule 32 and Burns, a defendant who is subject to sex-offender conditions is entitled to receive notice in advance of sentencing that such conditions are under consideration. United States v. Coenen, 135 F.3d 938, 943 (5th Cir.1998). However, defense counsel in Coenen objected when the sentence was pronounced and thus preserved the issue for appeal. Id. at 941. 49 In this case, defense counsel's failure to disclose any misgivings about the absence of pre-sentencing notice forecloses appellant's claim of plain error. At least two other courts reviewing similar challenges for plain error have rejected attempts to apply Rule 32's notice strictures in this context. See United States v. Ristine, 335 F.3d 692, 694 (8th Cir.2003); United States v. Brown, 235 F.3d 2 (1st Cir.2000). In our view, when, as here, a defendant is provided with an opportunity to articulate his position and then stands by as the court announces its determination without interposing any objection, we can find no threat to the integrity, fairness, or public reputation of judicial proceedings justifying reversal on grounds of plain error. 50 Appellant urges us to review the substantive validity of the terms of supervised release for abuse of discretion. He acknowledges that, [g]enerally, where a sentencing court affords the defendant an opportunity to object to the special conditions but the defendant remains silent, an appellate court reviews for plain error under Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). Appellant's Br. at 47. Appellant contends, however, that where a court imposes a special condition after resolving objections to the PSR and after permitting defendant to make a statement, the defendant has no meaningful opportunity to comment. Id. at 47-48. Appellant argues that, [i]n that instance, the attack on the special condition is not waived by the defendant's failure to assert it below, and the abuse of discretion standard applies. Id. at 48. We reject this argument. There is neither compelling legal authority nor good reason for such a rule. The proper standard of review here is plain error. 51 As noted above, once appellant was made aware of the conditions that the District Court intended to impose, his counsel was in a position to respond or to seek additional time in which to formulate a response. Standing mute is not an option, not if a litigant wishes to avoid a plain error standard of review on appeal. This case does not involve a situation in which the defendant was barred from speaking, objecting, or seeking more time after the District Court judge made clear what he had in mind with respect to conditions of supervised release. On this record, we agree with the holding in Ristine, rejecting the appellant's claim there that we should use an abuse of discretion standard, and not plain error, because [the defendant's] failure to object stemmed from his lack of notice that the challenged conditions would be imposed. 335 F.3d at 694. The absence of an objection in this case means that we review appellant's claim for plain error, and we find none. 52 Normally, in reviewing conditions of supervised release under the abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court considers how the trial court measured the conditions imposed against the statutorily enumerated sentencing goals. The decision in United States v. Stanfield, 360 F.3d 1346 (D.C.Cir.2004), describes what is entailed: 53 The imposition of a term of supervised release after imprisonment is authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3583. Subsection (d) of that provision specifies that the court may order any condition of supervised release it considers to be appropriate, to the extent the condition is reasonably related to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, and to the need to deter crime, to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and to provide needed training, medical care, or other correctional treatment to the defendant. The condition also must entail no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to provide adequate deterrence, to protect the public, and to meet the defendant's vocational and medical needs. 54 Id. at 1352-53 (internal citations omitted). In applying these standards, sentencing judges are afforded wide discretion when imposing terms and conditions of supervised release. United States v. Henkel, 358 F.3d 1013, 1014 (8th Cir.2004). 55 In this case, appellant challenges the conditions of supervised release relating to the computer restrictions, the prohibition against contact with minors, the restrictions on sexually stimulating materials, and the ban on cameras and video recording devices. None of these conditions is so plainly out of sync with the statutory goals enumerated in § 3553(a) as to warrant reversal under a plain error standard of review. 56 First, in cases involving prosecution for sex crimes — which is defined to include appellant's offense — restrictions on computer and Internet service are explicitly contemplated in the 2004 Sentencing Guidelines, which were in effect when Sullivan's sentence was determined. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(d)(7) (2004). While that version of the Guidelines did not govern appellant's sentencing, it certainly suggests that computer restrictions can be reasonably related to Sullivan's offense conduct. Moreover, no precedent in this circuit provided good reason to deny the validity of such a restriction. Appellant points to Stanfield, but that case does not cast doubt on the sentence at issue here. Reviewing a broad and confusing Internet restriction, we remanded the case to allow the district court to clarify the scope of the restriction. 360 F.3d at 1354. But in Stanfield, the defendant had filed a motion with the trial court to clarify the restriction. Id. at 1351-52. The record in this case, as we have shown, is quite different. 57 This circuit has yet to decide whether individuals convicted of sex crimes may have their Internet usage conditioned on Probation Office approval, and our sister circuits are divided on the issue. Compare United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 621 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding Internet restriction), and United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1093 (11th Cir.2003) (same), with United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728, 733 (8th Cir.2005) (reversing Internet restriction), and United States v. Sofsky, 287 F.3d 122, 126 (2nd Cir.2002) (same). This division among the circuits, coupled with the indication in the Sentencing Guidelines that some measure of Internet restriction is appropriate in cases like this one, commands our conclusion that the trial court committed no plain error. 58 Sullivan's other challenges to the validity of his terms of supervised release are also meritless. He points to no D.C. Circuit authority that is even arguably inconsistent with any of the remaining restrictions. We are thus satisfied that none of the conditions that he challenges warrants reversal. 59 Nor do we find any merit in Sullivan's terse contention that his sentence is flawed because the District Court failed to substantiate the terms of supervised release. As with the other sentencing issues we have discussed, Sullivan and his counsel sat in court while the judge pronounced the sentence, but they never voiced an objection on the ground that the District Court had failed to substantiate the conditions of release that were imposed. And appellant has offered no viable basis for ascribing plain error to the trial court on this issue. 60 In the end, we can find no plain error with respect to appellant's belated objection to his sentencing conditions. There is no indication here that appellant's substantial rights have been affected, see United States v. Baugham, 449 F.3d 167 (D.C.Cir. 2006) (appellant must `make a specific showing of prejudice,' i.e., show that the error `affected the outcome of the district court proceedings') (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 735, 113 S.Ct. 1770)), because there is no showing here that the judge would have imposed less onerous conditions even if appellant had been afforded advance notice. Cf. United States v. McKissic, 428 F.3d 719, 726 (7th Cir.2005) (It did not `affect substantial rights' because [appellant] can seek modification of the conditions.).