Opinion ID: 2831824
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Life Term of Supervised Release

Text: On appeal, Defendant argues that because he had no prior criminal history and there was no evidence that he ever had any actual contact with a child, the district court acted unreasonably when it imposed on him a life term of supervised release. Since 2003, the statutorily-authorized term of supervised release for a child pornography offense under § 2252 is “any term of years not less than 5, or 9 Case: 14-12900 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 10 of 17 life.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k); PROTECT Act, Pub.L. No. 108-21, § 101, 117 Stat. 650 (2003). Congress provided this option in response to the long-standing concerns of Federal judges and prosecutors regarding the inadequacy of the existing supervision periods for sex offenders, particularly for the perpetrators of child sexual abuse crimes, whose criminal conduct may reflect deep-seated aberrant sexual disorders that are not likely to disappear within a few years of release from prison. See United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1025 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 108–66, at 49–50 (2003) (Conf. Rep.), 2003 U.S.C.C.A.N. 683, 684) (holding that a life term of supervised release for several child pornography-related offenses did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment). Thus, pursuant to the Guidelines, a life term of supervised release may be imposed for convictions pursuant to § 2252. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b)(2) & comment. (n.1). Indeed, the relevant policy statement states, “[i]f the instant offense of conviction is a sex offense, however, the statutory maximum term of supervised release is recommended.” Id. § 5D1.2(b), p.s. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the district court committed plain error when it imposed a life term of supervised release. First, as noted, an error can be considered to be plain only when it is contrary to explicit statutory provisions or to on-point precedent in this Court or the Supreme Court. The relevant statute permits a term of this length and Defendant can point to no Supreme Court case or Eleventh Circuit case holding that a life term is per se 10 Case: 14-12900 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 11 of 17 unreasonable or presumptively invalid. To the contrary, this Court has concluded that a life term of supervised release was substantively reasonable for a defendant who had been convicted of one count of distribution of child pornography and two counts of possession of such materials. See Cubero, 754 F.3d at 898. While our non-published decisions carry no precedential weight, 4 and we therefore do not rely on their particular reasoning, the fact that we have, on several occasions in such decisions, affirmed as substantively reasonable a life term of supervised release, tends to diminish an argument that the district court’s imposition of such a term here was particularly suspect or that the court’s action placed it in “plain error” territory. See, e.g., United States v. Aguayo, 563 F. App’x 727, 729 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Everhart, 562 F. App’x 937, 942 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Ashcraft, 562 F. App’x 791, 794 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Dalimonte, 188 F. App’x 931, 933 (11th Cir. 2006). Of course, even if not presumptively unreasonable, a life term of supervised release, like any other condition of that release, could be invalidated upon a showing by the defendant that the condition in his case was substantively unreasonable. Yet, contrary to Defendant’s argument, the district court did not reflexively impose a life term of supervised release, but instead identified the facts and circumstances of Defendant’s case that rendered this term reasonable, 4 See 11th Cir. R. 36-2. 11 Case: 14-12900 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 12 of 17 including the length of time Defendant had been involved in child pornography, his mental health issues, the characteristics of the child pornography he possessed, and the number of images involved, as well as the extended length of the videos Defendant possessed. Thus, Defendant has failed to show that the district court committed an error that was plain when it decided that a life term of supervised release was reasonable under these circumstances. Beyond failing to show the existence of governing caselaw that forbids imposition of such a condition, Defendant also fails another prong of the plain error test: a showing that the error has affected the defendant’s substantial rights. That is, the particular length of a defendant’s term of supervised release, as articulated at sentencing, is not written in stone because a defendant has a statutory right, after serving at least one year of the term, to petition the district court to terminate early supervised release. And the court is free to so shorten the term of supervised release “if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). Moreover, the defendant has recourse to contest a district court’s denial of his motion to terminate early (or shorten) supervised release. Specifically, he can appeal the denial of such a motion, and the district court’s decision in that appeal will be subject to an abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., United States v. Mathis-Gardner, 783 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2015); United States v. Gammarano, 12 Case: 14-12900 Date Filed: 08/28/2015 Page: 13 of 17 321 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 2003); United States v. Pregent, 190 F.3d 279 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Joseph, 109 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 1997). 5 Given the ability of a defendant, once on supervised release, to seek to shorten the term of that release and given the availability of appellate review upon a denial of that request, it is difficult to discern a violation of Defendant’s substantial rights through the district court’s failure to intuit Defendant’s objection to the term of his release. In short, we conclude that Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the district court committed plain error when it imposed a life term of supervised release.