Court Opinion

ID: 9955421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 16:00:59.863035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:40.385678
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3055     Document: 010111023377       Date Filed: 03/28/2024     Page: 1
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                       United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           March 28, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

        Plaintiff - Appellee,

  v.                                                           No. 23-3055
                                                    (D.C. No. 6:14-CR-10059-JWB-1)
  WADE H. DEWEY,                                                (D. Kan.)

        Defendant - Appellant.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Wade H. Dewey appeals the district court’s revocation of his term of

 supervised release. He contends the district court erred by relying on his attempts to

 violate a special condition of his supervised release, rather than on any completed

 violation. The record, however, refutes Dewey’s factual premise that he only

 attempted to violate a special condition of his supervised release. Consequently, we

 exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the district court’s judgment.

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
 argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
 may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 23-3055      Document: 010111023377       Date Filed: 03/28/2024      Page: 2

                                              I

          Dewey was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 10 years of

 supervised release, for possessing child pornography. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).

 In November 2022, he began serving his term of supervised release, during which he

 was prohibited from “accessing certain types of web sites to include: social

 networking, chat rooms, and those depicting sexually explicit conduct or

 pornographic material.” R., Vol. I at 60 (Special Condition 5).1

          In March 2023, the government moved to revoke Dewey’s supervised release,

 alleging in an Amended Violation Report that he violated Special Condition 5 by

 both accessing and attempting to access pornographic websites and sexually explicit

 material. First, the government alleged that “he attempted to access multiple

 pornographic web sites and searched for sexually explicit material,” which it

 discovered during routine reviews of his internet activity on January 26 and

 1
     The full text of Special Condition 5 provides:

          As directed by the U.S. Probation Officer, the defendant shall cooperate
          with and abide by the policies of the United States Probation Office’s
          Computer and Internet Monitoring Program which includes restrictions
          and/or prohibitions related to: computer and Internet usage, possession
          and use of electronic, cellular, gaming, and Internet appliance devices;
          possession and use of computer hardware and software, encryption
          hardware or software, and accessing certain types of web sites to
          include: social networking, chat rooms, and those depicting sexually
          explicit conduct or pornographic material. The defendant will also be
          subject to computer monitoring, and will provide the United States
          Probation Office with a complete inventory of all electronic and Internet
          capable devices, user account information as well as password(s).

 R., Vol. I at 60.
                                              2
Appellate Case: 23-3055     Document: 010111023377        Date Filed: 03/28/2024     Page: 3

 February 1, 2023. Id., Vol. II at 54, para. 8; see id., para. 9. Second, the government

 alleged that he actually accessed prohibited websites, which it discovered on

 February 7, 2023, when a search of his cellphone “reveal[ed] numerous web sites

 visited that appeared to be pornographic or sexually explicit in nature.” Id., para. 10.

 Additionally, the government alleged that Dewey admitted these allegations to his

 probation officer on February 7, 2023—the same day his phone was searched: “On

 02/07/23, the defendant admitted accessing and/or attempting to access web sites

 containing sexually explicit conduct or pornographic material from 01/21/23 to

 02/07/23.” Id. at 55, para. 13.

        The district court held a hearing on the motion for revocation. At the hearing,

 the district court advised Dewey that he could either “contest the claims in the

 violation report” and put the government to its burden of proving the violation by a

 preponderance of the evidence, or he “could admit the violations and [the court

 would] decide what’s to be done about them,” id., Vol. III at 7. Dewey’s counsel

 replied that he wished to “stipulate to the allegations in the violation report.” Id. at 8.

 The district court asked Dewey to confirm that he wished to stipulate to the

 allegations, to which Dewey replied, “Yes.” Id. The district court then recited only

 the allegation that he had previously admitted the allegations to his probation officer

 on February 7, 2023: “The allegation . . . is that on February the 7th, 20[2]3 you

 admitted accessing or attempting to access websites containing sexually explicit

 conduct or pornographic material from January 21st, 2023 to February 7th, 2023.”

 Id. at 9. The district court pointedly asked Dewey, “Admit or deny?” Id. Dewey

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-3055     Document: 010111023377          Date Filed: 03/28/2024     Page: 4

 replied, “Yes.” Id. The district court clarified, “You admit that?” Id. Again, Dewey

 replied, “Yes.” Id. The district court advised Dewey he could put on evidence of the

 violation, but he declined. The district court thus stated: “based on the defendant’s

 admissions the Court finds that he’s violated his special condition number 5 of his

 supervised release as set forth in paragraph 13 of the Amended Violation Report, and

 he has waived his right to present evidence on that.” Id. at 10.

        The district court then turned to sentencing. The district court heard testimony

 from Dewey’s probation officer, who testified that he installed monitoring software

 on Dewey’s cellphone. The probation officer explained that Dewey turned off the

 monitoring software’s screen-capturing function, so there were no screen-captures of

 videos he was able to see from his search terms. But the probation officer indicated

 the monitoring software still recorded Dewey’s search terms, which included terms

 for child pornography, familial pedophilia, and bestiality. The probation officer

 testified that the monitoring software generated 90 pages of search terms, which the

 district court admitted into evidence. The district court also admitted 30 pages of

 handwritten notes, which the probation officer recovered from Dewey’s bedroom.

 The probation officer testified that he believed these notes were pornographic

 internet search terms that Dewey compiled.

        The district court weighed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and concluded that,

 “[b]ased on the [amended] violation report, the admissions, the evidence . . . , [and]

 the previously stated findings, . . . Dewey has violated the conditions of supervised

 release . . . and that . . . term of supervised release is revoked.” R., Vol. III at 67.

                                              4
Appellate Case: 23-3055    Document: 010111023377         Date Filed: 03/28/2024      Page: 5

 The court sentenced him to two years in prison, followed by ten years of supervised

 release.

                                             II

        On appeal, Dewey contends that Special Condition 5 prohibited him from

 “accessing certain” websites, but it did not prohibit him “from attempting to access

 certain websites.” Aplt. Br. at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted). He says that

 because he “admitted accessing or attempting to access” prohibited websites, his

 admission is insufficient to support the district court’s revocation of his supervised

 release. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

        “The district court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the

 defendant violated a condition of his supervised release.” United States v. Disney,

 253 F.3d 1211, 1213 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). We

 generally review “a district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of

 discretion,” but we review underlying legal questions de novo. United States v.

 Shakespeare, 32 F.4th 1228, 1232 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 463 (2022)

 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, however, Dewey failed to raise his

 argument in the district court, so we review only for plain error. Id. “To show plain

 error, [Dewey] must demonstrate (1) an error (2) that is clear or obvious, rather than

 subject to reasonable dispute, (3) affected his substantial rights, and (4) seriously

 affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

 (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).

                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-3055     Document: 010111023377         Date Filed: 03/28/2024     Page: 6

        Dewey’s argument falters on the first element of plain error review. He says

 he did not admit to accessing prohibited websites, but the Amended Violation Report

 alleged that a search of his cellphone revealed numerous websites “visited” that

 appeared to be pornographic or sexually explicit in nature. R., Vol. II at 54, para. 10

 (emphasis added). This allegation does not suggest a mere attempt; it expressly

 alleges Dewey actually “visited” prohibited websites. Id. And Dewey stipulated to

 this allegation at the revocation hearing when the district court asked if he wished to

 “contest the claims in the violation report” or “admit the violations.” Id., Vol. III at

 7. Dewey and his counsel both indicated he wished to “stipulate to the allegations in

 the violation report.” Id. at 8. Again, those allegations were not only that he

 attempted to access prohibited websites, but also that he actually “visited” prohibited

 websites. Id., Vol. II at 54, para. 10.

        Dewey ignores his stipulation and focuses on the allegation that he previously

 “admitted accessing and/or attempting to access” prohibited websites on February 7,

 2023. Id. at 55, para. 13. Dewey cites the district court recitation of that allegation

 at the revocation hearing, when the district court explained the Amended Violation

 Report alleged that on February 7, 2023, when Dewey’s probation officer searched

 his cellphone, Dewey “‘admitted accessing or attempting to access’” prohibited

 websites. Aplt. Br. at 6, 9 (emphasis omitted) (quoting R., Vol. III at 9). Dewey

 admitted that allegation to the district court too, but he had stipulated to all of the

 factual allegations, including that he “visited” prohibited websites. R., Vol. II at 54,

                                              6
Appellate Case: 23-3055     Document: 010111023377         Date Filed: 03/28/2024      Page: 7

 para. 10; see id., Vol. III at 8. Thus, there is no merit to his argument that he only

 admitted attempting to access prohibited websites.

        Further, even if there were a latent ambiguity in the record suggesting a

 potential error, Dewey could not surmount the second element of plain error review.

 Establishing an alleged error was plain requires that Dewey demonstrate it was clear

 or obvious. See United States v. Finnesy, 953 F.3d 675, 694 (10th Cir. 2020)

 (concluding a defendant could not establish that an alleged error was plain, in part

 because it was not “clear or obvious” from the record). That means he must show it

 was clear or obvious in the record that he admitted only to attempting to access

 prohibited websites. But as discussed, he “admitted accessing and/or attempting to

 access” prohibited websites, R., Vol. II at 55, para. 13; see id., Vol. III at 9, after

 explicitly declining to put the government to its burden of proving the violations and

 stating he wished to stipulate to the allegations of the violation report, which

 included the allegation that he actually visited websites. The record thus does not

 clearly or obviously demonstrate he only admitted attempting to access prohibited

 websites. Hence, Dewey cannot show any error in relying on his admissions to find

 he violated Special Condition 5 and revoke his term of supervised release was plain.

                                             III

        The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                         Entered for the Court

                                                         Bobby R. Baldock
                                                         Circuit Judge

                                              7