Court Opinion

ID: 9839929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 18:00:56.095511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:42.659844
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60123         Document: 00516895208             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/14/2023

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

                                       No. 23-60123                                    FILED
                                     Summary Calendar                         September 14, 2023
                                     ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Taylor Hidalgo,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Southern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 3:20-CR-100-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Taylor Hidalgo pleaded guilty in 2019 of failing to register as a sex
   offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). After he served his initial prison
   sentence, the district court revoked his supervised release and sent him back
   to prison. He completed that prison sentence and began serving another term
   of supervised release in 2022. He again violated the conditions of supervised

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60123        Document: 00516895208              Page: 2       Date Filed: 09/14/2023

                                          No. 23-60123

   release, and the district court revoked his supervised release, sentencing him
   to 16 months of imprisonment and eight years of supervised release.
           Hidalgo contends that the district court abused its discretion in
   imposing two of the conditions of supervised release: prohibiting him from
   (1) possessing or using a computer or other device to access the internet,
   except in connection with authorized employment with the prior approval of
   his probation officer, and (2) possessing or perusing any sexually explicit
   material. 1 We review preserved challenges to discretionary conditions of
   supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Salazar, 743 F.3d
   445, 448 (5th Cir. 2014).
           The district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting Hidalgo
   from accessing the internet except with the prior approval of his probation
   officer for employment purposes. A ban on computer or internet use must
   be “narrowly tailored either by scope or by duration.” United States v. Duke,
   788 F.3d 392, 399 (5th Cir. 2015). The condition limiting Hidalgo’s access
   to the internet is limited in scope, as he is allowed to seek approval from the
   probation officer to use the internet for employment purposes. Moreover,
   the condition is for a limited duration of eight years 2 and is reasonably related

           _____________________
           1
             Although Hidalgo asserts in a conclusory fashion that the challenged conditions
   violate his First Amendment rights, the failure to adequately “brief an issue on appeal
   constitutes waiver of that argument.” United States v. Fernandez, 48 F.4th 405, 412 (5th
   Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Hidalgo’s reply brief fleshes
   out his First Amendment argument, but we do not entertain arguments raised for the first
   time in a reply brief unless that issue is raised in the appellee’s brief and the appellant
   responds in reply. See United States v. Ramirez, 557 F.3d 200, 203 (5th Cir. 2009). Thus,
   we do not reach this issue.
           2
             The district court provided that if Hidalgo avoids violating the conditions of his
   supervised release for three years, he could move the court to amend or modify the
   conditions prohibiting him from accessing the internet or possessing sexually explicit
   material.

                                                2
Case: 23-60123      Document: 00516895208           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/14/2023

                                     No. 23-60123

   to his original offense that led to his sex offender status (sending sexually
   explicit pictures and videos to a 14-year-old girl). See United States v. Paul,
   274 F.3d 155, 167-70 (5th Cir. 2001).
          Also, the district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting
   Hidalgo from possessing or perusing sexually explicit material. In imposing
   discretionary conditions, district courts are required to consider a
   defendant’s history and characteristics.         See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(d)(1),
   3553(a)(1). Therefore, even if the offense of conviction in the instant case is
   not itself a sex offense, prior crimes may be considered in determining
   whether to impose certain conditions. See United States v. Iverson, 874 F.3d
   855, 861-62 (5th Cir. 2017). Here, the prohibition on possessing or perusing
   sexually explicit material is strongly connected to Hidalgo’s prior conviction
   for sexual battery of a minor as that offense involved him sending a 14-year-
   old girl sexually explicit videos and pictures. See United States v. Fields, 777
   F.3d 799, 803-04 (5th Cir. 2015). Moreover, while Hidalgo claims that the
   district court failed to explain how this condition was reasonably related to
   the sentencing factors, the record makes it clear that the district court
   considered the nature and circumstances of the offense, Hidalgo’s history
   and characteristics, the need for deterrence, and the need to protect the
   public before imposing this condition. See United States v. Caravayo, 809
   F.3d 269, 275 (5th Cir. 2015).
          AFFIRMED.

                                           3