United States v. Williams, 13-6147
Decision Date | 10 February 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 13-6147,13-6147 |
Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DECORY DANYAYLE WILLIAMS, Defendant - Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
(W.D. Okla.)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*Before TYMKOVICH, HOLLOWAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
DeCory Danyayle Williams appeals from the district court's order modifying his conditions of supervised release. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a),1 we affirm.
After serving his prison sentence, Mr. Williams registered as a sex offender in February 2013 and commenced supervised release. In May 2013, pursuant to his conditions of release, Mr. Williams submitted to a polygraph examination. Before the examination, Mr. Williams disclosed he had talked with Ms. Southwell on the telephone.During the examination, he admitted to viewing pornographic movies on five or six occasions and visiting a strip club on two occasions since his release.
As a result of these disclosures, the U.S. Probation Office petitioned the district court to modify Mr. Williams's conditions of supervised release and impose additional restrictions. The petition alleged that when Mr. Williams called Ms. Southwell, he violated the condition that he not associate with any person convicted of a felony. The petition also alleged that Mr. Williams's use of pornography and visits to strip clubs interfered with his sex offender treatment and prevented him from successfully reintegrating into society, in part because prostitution is often prevalent at strip clubs. Finally, the petition requested an order that Mr. Williams submit to warrantless searches based on reasonable suspicion.
Two witnesses testified at the hearing on the petition. Brock Johns, Mr. Williams's probation officer, testified that the warrantless searches condition was needed to ensure Mr. Williams did not possess pornography. He also testified this condition has been imposed on others who have been involved in the sex trade.
Valerie Lewis, who proctored Mr. Williams's initial sex offender mental health assessment and recommended sex offender treatment, testified that Mr. Williams's treatment was designed to "try[] to destroy cognitive distortions and thinking errors that led to the sex offense" such as "[t]hought processes that objectify sex, objectify women, [and] just any thought processes that are against the norm that were a part of [his]offending behavior." ROA, Vol. 2 at 38-39. She further testified that use of pornography and visits to strip clubs could undermine Mr. Williams's sex offender treatment.
The district court found Mr. Williams violated his release conditions by talking with Ms. Southwell. It determined additional conditions were needed "to protect the public" and "to aid[ Mr. Williams's] treatment and supervision." ROA, Vol. 1 at 43. The court imposed the following additional conditions:
Id. The district court, speaking to Mr. Williams, explained why the additional conditions were needed:
Mr. Williams appeals the district court's imposition of these additional conditions.
The issue is whether the district court abused its discretion when it imposed the additional conditions of supervised release. We hold it did not and affirm.
Mr. Williams challenges the substantive reasonableness of the additional conditions of supervised release. We review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Begay, 631 F.3d 1168, 1170 (10th Cir. 2011). We reverse "only if the sentence, in light of the sentencing factors referenced in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), was an abuse of discretion because it was 'arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.'" United States v. Dunbar, 718 F.3d 1268, 1282 (10th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 808 (2013) (quoting United States v. Damato, 672 F.3d 832, 838 (10th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 319 (2012)).
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583, the district Id. Although "[d]istrict courts have broad discretion to prescribe special conditions of release," that discretion is not unlimited. United States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686, 692 (10th Cir. 2011). One limit is the conditions must be reasonably related to at least one of the following § 3553(a) factors: the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant's history and characteristics; the deterrence of criminal conduct; the protection of the public from further crimes of the defendant; or the defendant's educational, vocational, medical, or other correctional needs. See id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Mr. Williams argues that the new...
To continue reading
Request your trial