Court Opinion

ID: 9392481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 00:00:29.316502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:46.110298
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10552        Document: 00516738935             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/04/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                     May 4, 2023
                                       No. 22-10552                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                         Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Andrew Stuart McDaniel,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:11-CR-43-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Graves, Higginson, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge:*
         Andrew McDaniel pleaded guilty in 2011 to one count of possessing
   child pornography. He was sentenced to 97 months imprisonment followed
   by a 10-year term of supervised release. After his release, McDaniel filed a
   motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) to modify his original conditions of
   supervised release. The district court denied the motion without a hearing.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10552         Document: 00516738935              Page: 2       Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                          No. 22-10552

   McDaniel appeals and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We
   AFFIRM.
                                                I.
           McDaniel first argues that the district court erred by refusing to hold
   a hearing on his § 3583(e)(2) motion. But McDaniel forfeited this argument
   by raising it too late. See Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir.
   2021) (explaining that “[a] party forfeits an argument by failing to raise it in
   the first instance in the district court”); United States v. Zuniga, 860 F.3d
   276, 284 n.9 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Failure to raise a claim to the district court
   constitutes a forfeiture . . . of that right for the purposes of appeal.” (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted)).
           Below, McDaniel did not argue that the district court was required to
   hold a hearing, nor did he request a hearing prior to the court’s denial of his
   motion. Instead, his motion to modify explained that “a court may modify
   the conditions of supervised release without a hearing” and further certified
   that McDaniel “conferred with [the Government] and the Government
   waives a hearing on these modifications.” McDaniel’s later motion
   requesting findings of fact and conclusions of law under Federal Rule of
   Criminal Procedure 23(c) was filed after the district court’s order denying
   his motion to modify and after McDaniel filed his notice of appeal to the Fifth
   Circuit. We therefore reject this argument as a ground to disturb the district
   court’s judgment.

           _____________________
           1
              We pretermit the nonjurisdictional questions whether McDaniel’s notice of
   appeal was untimely and whether his appeal is barred by an appeal-waiver provision. See
   United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388-89 (5th Cir. 2007) (explaining that the time
   limit for filing a criminal appeal is not jurisdictional and can be waived); United States v.
   Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006) (noting that appeal waivers do not deprive our
   court of jurisdiction).

                                                2
Case: 22-10552        Document: 00516738935              Page: 3       Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                          No. 22-10552

                                               II.
           McDaniel next challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to
   modify a special condition of supervised release that prohibits him from
   having unsupervised contact with persons under the age of eighteen.
   Specifically, McDaniel seeks to have unsupervised visitation with his
   underage daughter. Generally, our court reviews rulings on motions to
   modify conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion. See United
   States v. Doyle, 865 F.3d 214, 214-15, 214 n.1 (5th Cir. 2017).2 “A court abuses
   its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous
   assessment of the evidence.” United States v. Cooper, 996 F.3d 283, 286 (5th
   Cir. 2021) (cleaned up).
           The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying McDaniel’s
   motion to modify this condition. His crime of conviction involved a violent
   pornographic video of a child his daughter’s age, and within the past five
   years, McDaniel’s former sex-offender therapist reported that he “is a
   serious risk to offend again and . . . is preoccupied with 11 and 12-year-old
   girls.” McDaniel strenuously denies his former therapist’s report and
   provides polygraph results that support his rehabilitation. But it was not an
   abuse of discretion for the district court, when faced with countervailing
   evidence, to deny McDaniel’s motion to modify. See Mid-Continent Cas. Co.
   v. Davis, 683 F.3d 651, 654 (5th Cir. 2012) (“[W]here there are two
   permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them
   cannot be clearly erroneous.” (citation omitted)); GIC Servs., L.L.C., v.
   Freightplus USA, Inc., 866 F.3d 649, 660 (5th Cir. 2017) (“The existence of

           _____________________
           2
             Although McDaniel failed to object to his supervised release conditions at
   sentencing, we need not resolve whether his claims should be reviewed for plain error
   because he is not entitled to relief even under the abuse-of-discretion standard. See Doyle,
   865 F.3d at 214 n.1.

                                                3
Case: 22-10552       Document: 00516738935             Page: 4     Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                       No. 22-10552

   conflicting evidence is precisely the context in which we defer to the district
   court’s factual findings.”). We note, moreover, that McDaniel’s conditions
   permit supervised visitation, and he is free to request a modification of this
   condition again if he can demonstrate a change of circumstances, particularly
   with respect to the state family court’s oversight of his relationship with his
   daughter.
                                            III.
          McDaniel also requests permission to use a bow and arrow to hunt on
   his family farm. He makes two distinct arguments.
          First, he argues that his conditions of supervised release permit him to
   use a bow and arrow to hunt on his family farm. He claims the condition in
   question, which proscribes his possession of “a firearm, destructive device
   or any other dangerous weapon,” does not encompass a bow and arrow used
   for hunting purposes. But McDaniel did not raise this argument before the
   district court. He has therefore forfeited the argument on appeal. Rollins, 8
   F.4th at 397; Zuniga, 860 F.3d at 284 n.9.3
          Second, McDaniel argues that, assuming his conditions of supervised
   release prohibit his use of a bow and arrow, the district court abused its
   discretion by denying his motion to modify because he has exhibited no
   violent behavior that could justify such a restriction. But McDaniel’s crime
   of conviction involved video of violent “sadistic and masochistic abuse” of a
   child. Moreover, McDaniel’s parole officer recommended denying his
   motion for modification because “McDaniel has demonstrated aggressive
   behaviors, including being charged with stalking his ex-wife” and aggressive
   behaviors toward his former therapist. His former therapist also stated that
          _____________________
          3
              Again, McDaniel did not object to the dangerous weapon condition as vague or
   ill-defined at sentencing. Nor did he do so on direct appeal.

                                             4
Case: 22-10552     Document: 00516738935          Page: 5   Date Filed: 05/04/2023

                                   No. 22-10552

   McDaniel “has a pathological obsession with his ex-wife and can turn in a
   heartbeat.”
         Once again, McDaniel strenuously contests his parole officer’s and
   former therapist’s claims and alleges countervailing evidence. McDaniel
   reports that his current therapist, for example, claims that the stalking
   charge, which was dropped, was “not valid” and “not legitimate.” Even still,
   it is not an abuse of discretion for the district court, when faced with
   countervailing evidence, to deny McDaniel’s motion to modify. See Mid-
   Continent Cas. Co., 683 F.3d at 654; GIC Servs., L.L.C., 866 F.3d at 660.
         AFFIRMED.

                                        5