763 Fed.Appx. 870 (11th Cir. 2019), 18-11021, United States v. Washington

Docket Nº:18-11021
Citation:763 Fed.Appx. 870
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM:
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Jason Wu, John C. Shipley, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service - Southern District of Florida, U.S. Attorney Service - SFL, Miami, FL, Robert Benjamin Cornell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee Ian McDonald, Michael Caruso, Federal...
Judge Panel:Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 11, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 870

763 Fed.Appx. 870 (11th Cir. 2019)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Brian WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-11021

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

March 11, 2019

Editorial Note:

DO NOT PUBLISH. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.)

Jason Wu, John C. Shipley, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney Service - Southern District of Florida, U.S. Attorney Service - SFL, Miami, FL, Robert Benjamin Cornell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ian McDonald, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-20159-UU-1

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Brian Washington was convicted of possessing a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 2252(a)(4)(B), after he admitted to using internet file-sharing networks to view child pornography. The district court sentenced him to sixty months’ imprisonment, followed by ten years of

Page 871

supervised release. In January of 2017, Mr. Washington completed his custodial sentence and began his term of supervised release. His supervised release included the following special conditions, among others:

Computer Modem Restriction - The defendant shall not possess or use a computer that contains an internal, external or wireless modem without the prior approval of the Court.

Computer Possession Restriction - The defendant shall not possess or use any computer; except that the defendant may, with the prior approval of the Court, use a computer in connection with authorized employment.

D.E. 57 at 4.

After a probation officer filed a petition to revoke his supervised release for violating the computer-use conditions, Mr. Washington admitted to using a computer containing an internal wireless modem in connection with a GED program without approval from the court. The district court determined that Mr. Washington violated his conditions of supervised release and reinstated his terms of supervised release with an additional condition— GPS monitoring for a year. Mr. Washington now challenges the constitutionality of the computer-use conditions.

We generally review the district court’s imposition of a condition of supervised release for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Moran, 573 F.3d 1132, 1137 (11th Cir. 2009). But because Mr. Washington failed to object to his conditions of supervised release in the district court, we only review his challenge for plain error. Id.

To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must show that there is "(1) error, (2) that is plain and (3) that affects substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, an appellate court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted). An error is plain when it is "contrary to ... on-point precedent in this Court or the Supreme Court." United States v. Hoffman, 710 F.3d 1228, 1232 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). Generally speaking, " ‘there can be no plain error where there is not precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving [the issue].’ " United States v....

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP