Court Opinion

ID: 9401060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 21:00:41.601261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.533777
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-4345      Doc: 33         Filed: 06/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-4345

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        AARON LEE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:11-cr-02109-RMG-1)

        Submitted: June 5, 2023                                              Decided: June 8, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Emily Deck Harrill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE
        FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. M. Rhett
        Dehart, Acting United States Attorney, Christopher B. Schoen, Assistant United States
        Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4345      Doc: 33         Filed: 06/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Aaron Lee, who finished serving a 120-month sentence for his conviction for

        possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), appeals the

        district court’s judgment continuing his supervised release after Lee committed several

        violations of the terms of his supervised release. The judgment includes a standard risk

        assessment condition and a nude materials restriction as a special condition. On appeal,

        we granted Lee’s motion to hold this this case in abeyance pending our decision in United

        States v. Cohen, 63 F.4th 250 (4th Cir. 2023). For the reasons that follow, we now affirm

        in part and vacate and remand in part.

               On appeal, Lee first argues that this court should vacate his sentence because the

        standard risk assessment condition in his written judgment is not identical to the Sentencing

        Guidelines’ standard risk assessment condition in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

        § 5D1.3(c) (2021), which the court incorporated by reference at the hearing on Lee’s

        supervised release violations. “[A]ll non-mandatory conditions of supervised release must

        be announced at a defendant’s sentencing hearing.” United States v. Rogers, 961 F.3d 291,

        296 (4th Cir. 2020). When a defendant did not have an opportunity to object in the district

        court, we review de novo whether the sentence imposed in a written judgment is consistent

        with the district court’s oral pronouncement of the sentence. Id. at 295-96; see United

        States v. Cisson, 33 F.4th 185, 192-93 (4th Cir. 2022). We “compar[e] the sentencing

        transcript with the written judgment to determine whether an error occurred as a matter of

        law.” Id. at 296. “[I]f a conflict arises between the orally pronounced sentence and the

        written judgment, then the oral sentence controls,” id., but if the oral sentence is

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4345         Doc: 33         Filed: 06/08/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        ambiguous, “we may look to the written judgment to clarify the district court’s intent,” id.

        at 299.

                  We find no Rogers error here.         Having reviewed the district court’s oral

        pronouncement, we find it ambiguous, as it appears the district court incorporated both the

        standard conditions set forth in the probation officer’s supervised release violation report

        and the standard conditions set forth in USSG § 5D1.3(c). We therefore look to the written

        judgment to clarify the district court’s intent. See Rogers, 961 F.3d at 299. Because the

        standard risk assessment condition in Lee’s written judgment tracks the standard risk

        assessment condition in the probation officer’s supervised release violation report, we

        conclude that the district court intended the standard risk assessment condition in that

        report to control.

                  Lee next argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing special

        condition 12, the nude materials restriction, in the written judgment. The nude materials

        restriction can be broken down into four clauses:

                  [1.] [Lee] must not possess, access, subscribe to, or view any videos,
                  magazines, literature, photographs, images, drawings, video games, or
                  Internet web sites depicting children or adults in the nude and/or engaged in
                  sexual activity[], and

                  [2.] [Lee] may not patronize businesses or places whose primary purpose
                  is to provide sexually-oriented material or entertainment[,] [and] . . .

                  [3.] [Lee] must not possess any materials depicting and/or describing
                  “child pornography” and/or “simulated child pornography” as defined in 18
                  U.S.C. § 2256[,] [and] . . .

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4345          Doc: 33          Filed: 06/08/2023     Pg: 4 of 5

                 [4.] [Lee] must not enter a place where such materials can be obtained or
                 viewed, electronically or otherwise.
        See Cohen, 63 F.4th at 256. Lee contests only the first and fourth clauses, arguing that the

        court abused its discretion because the restrictions are not reasonably related to the factors

        set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), restrict more liberty than reasonably necessary to

        support the purposes of sentencing set forth in § 3583(d)(2), and are unconstitutionally

        vague.

                 “District courts have broad latitude to impose conditions on supervised release.”

        United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks

        omitted).       “When a defendant challenges the imposition of a special condition of

        supervision by asserting that it is overbroad under § 3583(d), we review the district court’s

        decision to impose the condition for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Comer, 5 F.4th

        535, 546 (4th Cir. 2021). We conclude that Lee sufficiently objected to the imposition of

        an adult pornography restriction, alerting the district court to the claims he raises on appeal.

                 Given our recent decision in Cohen, * we agree that the first clause of special

        condition 12 is overbroad. See 63 F.4th at 256-57. We disagree, however, with Lee’s

        argument that the fourth clause of special condition 12 is unconstitutionally vague,

        overbroad, or not reasonably related to the § 3583(d)(1) factors. Like the defendant in

        Cohen, Lee interprets the phrase “such materials” in the fourth clause as referring to any

        location where the materials referred to in the first clause can be obtained or viewed. See

                 *
                     The district court did not have the benefit of our decision in Cohen.

                                                         4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-4345       Doc: 33         Filed: 06/08/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        Cohen, 63 F.4th at 257. But as we held in Cohen, a plain reading of special condition

        twelve shows that “such materials” in the fourth clause refers to the materials referenced

        in the third clause: that is, materials depicting or describing child pornography or simulated

        child pornography. See id. Because Lee’s argument about the fourth clause’s overbreadth,

        vagueness, and relatedness to the § 3583(d)(1) factors rests on Lee’s erroneous

        interpretation of clause four, his argument fails.

               Accordingly, we vacate the first clause of special condition 12 and remand for entry

        of a modified judgment striking that clause and for further proceedings consistent with this

        opinion. See id. at 259. We affirm the district court’s judgment in all other respects. 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 IN PART,
                                                             VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

                                                      5