Court Opinion

ID: 9892785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-24 21:00:38.122802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:46:03.281125
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4467      Doc: 32         Filed: 10/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4467

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        SCOTT A. CASCONE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00693-MBS-1)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 23, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Kimberly H. Albro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F.
        Boroughs, United States Attorney, Dean H. Secor, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4467       Doc: 32          Filed: 10/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Scott A. Cascone pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to production

        of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). The district court sentenced

        Cascone to 300 months’ imprisonment, followed by a lifetime term of supervised release.

        On appeal, Cascone argues one of the discretionary conditions of his supervised release is

        substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

               Generally, “[w]e review special conditions of supervision for abuse of discretion,

        recognizing that district courts have broad latitude in this space.”          United States v.

        Castellano, 60 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). But

        because Cascone did not object to the challenged condition before the district court, our

        review is for plain error. See United States v. McMiller, 954 F.3d 670, 674 (4th Cir. 2020).

        Thus, Cascone “must show that an error occurred, that it was plain, and that it affected his

        substantial rights.” Id. If he makes such a showing, “we will exercise our discretion to

        correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity[,] or public reputation of

        judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

               A district court “may impose any . . . condition it considers to be appropriate, as

        long as that condition is reasonably related to statutory factors referred to in [18 U.S.C.]

        § 3583(d)(1).” United States v. Dotson, 324 F.3d 256, 260 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). Those factors include “the nature and circumstances of the

        offenses, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the statutory goals of

        deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation.” United States v. Ellis, 984 F.3d

        1092, 1098 (4th Cir. 2021). However, “[s]pecial conditions of supervision may restrict

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4467       Doc: 32          Filed: 10/23/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        only as much of a person’s liberty as reasonably necessary to further the purposes of

        sentencing.” United States v. Cohen, 63 F.4th 250, 256 (4th Cir. 2023), petition for cert.

        filed, No. 22-7818 (U.S. June 20, 2023). Although the district court is required “to provide

        an individualized explanation for [a] condition’s broad sweep,” Castellano, 60 F.4th at 225

        (cleaned up), “[t]he amount of explanation required will vary with the nature of the

        condition imposed and the circumstances of each case,” United States v. Van Donk, 961

        F.3d 314, 322 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               Here the district court imposed a condition of supervised release prohibiting

        Cascone from possessing, accessing, subscribing to, or viewing “any videos, magazines,

        literature, photographs, images, drawings, video games, or Internet websites depicting

        child pornography or containing minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct as defined in

        18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)” or possessing “any materials depicting and/or describing ‘child

        pornography’ and/or ‘simulated child pornography’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256.” The

        district court stated this condition was justified by the need to protect the public in light of

        Cascone’s offense conduct, which involved enticing a 14-year-old child to produce

        photographs depicting herself engaged in sexual activity; to deter Cascone from “potential

        future crimes of a similar nature”; and to promote rehabilitation. In explaining the

        sentence, the district court also emphasized that Cascone had been convicted in state court

        of a prior production of child pornography offense and that, at the time of his arrest on the

        instant offense, he was in possession of “[c]opious amounts of child pornography.” On

        these facts, we conclude the district court did not plainly err by imposing the challenged

        condition. See United States v. Sueiro, 59 F.4th 132, 144 (4th Cir. 2023) (holding district

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4467      Doc: 32         Filed: 10/23/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        court did not abuse its discretion in imposing special condition that bore “a direct

        relationship to [defendant’s] crimes of conviction”); United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792

        F.3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 2015) (“A court’s sentencing rationale . . . can support both

        imprisonment and supervised release.”).

               We therefore affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                        AFFIRMED

                                                     4