Court Opinion

ID: 9494692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:44:10.95818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:33.573377
License: Public Domain

KYLE, District Judge,
dissenting.
Although I agree with the decision insofar as it concludes that Andis did not waive his right to appeal what he now claims to be an illegal sentence, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that certain terms of supervised release may have been imposed by the District Court “without due consideration” and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Defendant Andis first met the juvenile victim on the Internet where, knowing that she was only 14 years old, he engaged in sexually explicit conversations with her. Andis then drove from Las Vegas to Missouri, where he picked up the juvenile at her home and returned her to Las Vegas, where they engaged in sexual intercourse on multiple occasions over the course of several days. He pleaded guilty to transporting a minor in interstate commerce for illegal sexual activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a).
At his sentencing hearing, counsel for Andis objected to the imposition of the five conditions of supervised release which are the subject of this appeal on the grounds that “those conditions are not reasonably related to the facts and circumstances of this case, or the history and characteristics of Mr. Andis, nor are they fine-tuned to the facts of this case. I think they are a great deprivation of his liberty and his ability to work.” (Tr. at 23.)
The District Court responded to counsel’s objections as follows:
“I think they [the conditions] are reasonably related to this particular offense.
H* H* H* * * *
I don’t think it’s going to unduly impinge upon defendant’s rights, other than those that he has violated, which have brought him into this circumstance.
^ ^ H* ‡ H< &
I think all of these restrictions are appropriate for the conduct that this defendant was engaging in.” (Tr. at 24.)
In light of this record, the majority concludes that “the district court did not carefully consider whether the conditions of release were ‘fine tuned’ to the crime or the defendant’s individual situation.” I do not read the sentencing transcript that way. The trial court had the recommendations of the probation office before it prior to sentencing. It did not adopt all of the recommended conditions as a mere “rubber stamp”; the sentencing judge rejected a recommended condition involving clothing. Upon specific objections by defense counsel, the sentencing judge stated that the imposed conditions were appropriate for defendant’s conduct and reasonably related to the defendant’s offense.
In my view, each of the objected to conditions is clearly related to the sexual misconduct of the Defendant; each is directed at permitting the probation office to effectively monitor Defendant’s access to children under the age of 18. With the exception of the search of his person, residence, office or vehicle upon reasonable suspicion of contraband or evidence of a violation of a condition of release, the Defendant’s activities are generally restricted only if carried on without the permission of the probation officer. The District Court considered and applied the principles enumerated in Prendergast and imposed conditions appropriate for the Defendant.
To remand the matter for reconsideration of the same record which was before *990the District Court (and is now before this Court), and to instruct the District Court to apply principles which were clearly known to and considered by the District Court in the first instance, avoids this Court’s responsibility for the sentence to be imposed. If the majority is of the view that the imposed conditions are not appropriate for this type of sexual misconduct,7 it should say so and direct the District Court to delete those conditions. The record is before us and we should either affirm the District Court or reverse with directions to eliminate the conditions found objectionable by the majority here.8 I would affirm.

. Judge Bright states that the imposed conditions “may not bear a reasonable relationship to either the nature and circumstances of the offense or the history and characteristics of the defendant ...." Judge Arnold agrees that “the conditions imposed on Mr. Andis may well have been unreasonable and thus unauthorized by law.”

. In U.S. v. Prendergast, 979 F.2d 1289 (8th Cir.1992), after determining that certain terms of supervised release did not "reasonably relate to the goals of rehabilitation and protection,” this Court remanded the case to the district court with directions to “amend the conditions of supervised release by eliminating” certain conditions.