Court Opinion

ID: 9930515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 01:00:36.636347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:15.476730
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60264        Document: 00517057794             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/06/2024

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

                                      No. 23-60264
                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                February 6, 2024
                                     ____________
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   John Pedelahore,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 1:15-CR-24-1
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         John Pedelahore appeals the district court’s revocation of his
   supervised release and imposition of a sentence of thirty months of
   imprisonment followed by eight years of supervised release. Pedelahore’s
   supervision was revoked after he violated the conditions prohibiting him
   from using internet-capable devices without prior permission and requiring
   him to truthfully answer his probation officer’s inquiries. He contends that

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60264         Document: 00517057794               Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/06/2024

                                          No. 23-60264

   his resulting sentence is substantively unreasonable because he committed
   only technical violations of the supervision conditions and did not attempt to
   access any illegal content online. He further contends that a custodial
   sentence is ineffective for reducing criminality and not in line with the
   purpose of rehabilitation. 1

           _____________________
           1
              As part of Pedelahore’s supervised release, the district court imposed multiple
   special conditions, including, inter alia, the conditions that Pedelahore (1) may not use any
   Internet-capable device, unless granted permission in advance by his probation officer, (2)
   may not access any computers or other forms of wireless communications via third parties,
   and (3) may not obtain or maintain any employment where he has access to any Internet-
   capable devices, unless granted permission in advance by his probation officer. This
   circuit’s jurisprudence has made it clear that restrictions on the use of computers or the
   Internet must be “narrowly tailored either by scope or by duration” as to not preclude a
   defendant “from meaningfully participating in modern society.” United States v. Duke, 788
   F.3d 392, 399–400 (5th Cir. 2015); see, e.g., United States v. Naidoo, 995 F.3d 367, 384 (5th
   Cir. 2021); United States v. Sealed Juvenile, 781 F.3d 747, 757 (5th Cir. 2015). Even in cases
   where restrictions have been narrowed by permitting access when the defendant obtains
   the prior approval of the probation officer, such approval must still be applied “in such a
   way as to give defendants meaningful access to computers or the Internet.” United States
   v. Becerra, 835 F. App’x 751, 756 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Sealed Juvenile, 781 F.3d at 756–
   57); see also United States v. Clark, 784 F. App’x 190, 193–94 (5th Cir. 2019) (finding
   unreasonable a condition requiring the defendant to request approval every time he sought
   to use a computer or access the Internet); Naidoo, 995 F.3d at 384 (affirming condition
   “subject to [the court’s] interpretation that individual approval is not required every single
   time [the defendant] must use a computer or access the Internet”).
             Here, Pedelahore does not argue, either below or on appeal, that any of the special
   conditions imposed upon him are, in and of themselves, unreasonable. Instead, Pedelahore
   only argues that the district court “failed to account for mitigating factors that should have
   received significant weight and erred in balancing the statutory sentencing factors,” such
   that it led to a sentence that is “greater than necessary.” As such, we consider any such
   argument challenging the reasonableness of the individual conditions of supervised release
   waived. See United States v. Jackson, 426 F.3d 301, 304 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v.
   Brace, 145 F.3d 247, 255–56 (5th Cir. 1998) (“It goes without saying that we are a court of
   review, not of original error. Restated, we review only those issues presented to us; we do
   not craft new issues or otherwise search for them in the record.”).

                                                     2
Case: 23-60264      Document: 00517057794            Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/06/2024

                                      No. 23-60264

          Because Pedelahore neither objected to his sentence nor requested a
   sentence below thirty months at his revocation hearing, we review only for
   plain error. See United States v. Napper, 978 F.3d 118, 124 (5th Cir. 2020). To
   demonstrate plain error, Pedelahore must identify (1) an error that has not
   been intentionally relinquished or forfeited (2) that is clear or obvious, rather
   than subject to reasonable dispute, and (3) that affects his substantial rights.
   See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).
          Pedelahore fails to show reversible error. His thirty-month revocation
   sentence is within the three-year statutory maximum for a Class B felony. See
   United States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614, 616 (5th Cir. 2014); 18 U.S.C.
   § 3583(e)(3). Additionally, in selecting the sentence, the district court
   considered the appropriate 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors as well as the
   nonbinding policy statements in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines. Pedelahore fails
   to show that the district court clearly or obviously erred in weighing or
   balancing the sentencing factors. See United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321,
   332–33 (5th Cir. 2013). The district court acknowledged that its sentence is
   above the applicable advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. In explaining its
   decision to deviate from the advisory term, the district court explained that
   it took into “serious consideration” the danger that Pedelahore will reach out
   to others again in the future. The district court also noted that this is
   Pedelahore’s third revocation—with some of his past revocations involving
   the same or similar conduct for which he was originally convicted—and
   represents yet another breach of the court’s trust. See Napper, 978 F.3d at
   125; cf. United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256, 265 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding
   revocation sentence twenty-six months above policy statement range but
   within statutory maximum not to be plain error). We cannot say the district
   court erred, let alone plainly erred, in its decision.
          The judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                               3