Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case regarding the defendant's guilty plea to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B), the appellate court evaluated the reasonableness of a lifetime supervised release sentence. The district court justified this sentence by considering the quantity and duration of illicit content, the impact on victims, and the defendant's difficult background and limited prospects for rehabilitation. Despite finding the sentence reasonable, the appellate court identified a procedural error in the written judgment, which mistakenly included Abel testing not ordered in the oral pronouncement, necessitating a remand for correction. The defendant challenged four supervised release conditions citing inadequate notice, but the appellate court found the notice sufficient, as the changes were minor under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(c). The court also ruled that the requirement to disclose the presentence report to a treatment provider was standard and did not require prior notice. The court affirmed that computer-related conditions must comply with current case law. Ultimately, the court upheld the district court's decisions, except for the remand to correct the written judgment. This ruling is unpublished and non-precedential per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Alignment of Computer-Related Conditions with Case Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court instructed that computer-related conditions of supervised release should be consistent with existing case law.
Reasoning: Lastly, the court stated that computer-related conditions should align with existing case law.
Disclosure of Presentence Reportsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the requirement to disclose the presentence report to a treatment provider was routine and did not require prior notice.
Reasoning: Additionally, the requirement to disclose the presentence report to a treatment provider was deemed routine and did not necessitate prior notice.
Notice Requirements for Supervised Release Conditionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found the notice given for changes to supervised release conditions was reasonable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(c), as the changes were deemed minor.
Reasoning: Underwood also contested four conditions of his supervised release, claiming inadequate notice. The court found that the changes between the announced and imposed conditions were minor, thus constituting reasonable notice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(c).
Procedural Error in Judgment Documentationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment regarding the inclusion of Abel testing was identified, necessitating a remand for correction.
Reasoning: There was a procedural error where the district court's written judgment mistakenly included Abel testing, which was meant to be stricken. The appellate court remanded the case to correct this discrepancy, emphasizing that oral pronouncements control over written judgments when discrepancies occur.
Reasonableness of Lifetime Supervised Releasesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviewed the district court's imposition of a lifetime supervised release term for reasonableness, considering the nature of the offense and the defendant's background.
Reasoning: The district court imposed a lifetime term of supervised release, which it justified by considering the number and duration of illicit images possessed, the victimization of minors, and the defendant's challenging background and limited rehabilitation prospects.