Court Opinion

ID: 9913996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-29 14:00:44.300937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:48.015410
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10246    Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 12/29/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10246
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DANIEL JOSEPH TOUIZER,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cr-60286-BB-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10246      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 12/29/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10246

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and BRASHER and ABUDU, Cir-
       cuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Daniel Touizer appeals the denial of his motion to reduce or
       modify a condition of his supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2),
       imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire and
       mail fraud in a fraudulent investment scheme, id. § 1349. Touizer
       argues that the condition, which permits the probation officer to
       inspect his computer equipment and install systems to monitor his
       computer use, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. He also
       argues that the computer-examination condition creates an unwar-
       ranted sentencing disparity with his codefendants, who were not
       subject to the same condition, and that the district court should
       have tailored the condition to be less invasive. We affirm.
              Insofar as Touizer challenges the constitutionality of the
       computer-examination condition, Cordero controls. Section
       3583(e)(2) “cannot be used to challenge the legality or constitution-
       ality of supervised release conditions” because those arguments
       “are reserved properly for direct appeal or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 mo-
       tion to vacate sentence.” United States v. Cordero, 7 F.4th 1058, 1070
       (11th Cir. 2021). The computer-examination condition was im-
       posed in Touizer’s original written judgment and in the judgment
       imposing sentence upon revocation of supervised release, yet he
       raised no challenge to the constitutionality of the condition on ap-
       peal from either judgment. He cannot do so now. See id.
USCA11 Case: 23-10246      Document: 31-1     Date Filed: 12/29/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-10246               Opinion of the Court                         3

               We also disagree with Touizer that the district court abused
       its discretion in denying his request to modify the computer-exam-
       ination condition because it found that the condition was “appro-
       priate.” See id. Touizer resumed operating one of the businesses he
       used to commit the underlying fraud only one month after he was
       released from prison to serve his term of supervised release. After
       learning that Touizer also had contacted several victims of his
       scheme—many of whom were elderly and had been robbed of
       their life savings—by email, the district court found it necessary to
       impose an additional special condition prohibiting him from con-
       tacting the victims. Although Touizer argues that the computer-ex-
       amination condition creates an unwarranted sentencing disparity
       with his codefendants, Touizer was the scheme’s undisputed
       “leader and the organizer” who “not only started these companies,
       but [was] the chief executive officer,” so he failed to establish that
       he was similarly situated with his codefendants. See United States v.
       Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1351 (11th Cir. 2018).
             We AFFIRM the denial of Touizer’s motion to reduce or
       modify his supervised release conditions.