United States v. Medina, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Medina, 1st Cir. (2015)

1/42

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 1936

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

MOI SS MEDI NA,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J os Ant oni o Fust , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Thompson, and Bar r on,Ci r cui t J udges.

Edwar d J . O' Br i en, wi t h whom O' Donnel l , Tr ossel l o & O' Br i en,LLP was on br i ef , f or appel l ant .

Mar shal D. Morgan, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whomJ uan Car l os Reyes- Ramos, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, RosaEmi l i a Rodr guez- Vl ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, and Nel son Pr ez-

Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef , Appel l at e Di vi si on,wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

Mar ch 4, 2015


2/42

BARRON, Circuit Judge. Moi ss Medi na f ai l ed t o r egi st er

as a sex of f ender when he moved t o Puer t o Ri co i n May of 2012, even

t hough he had been convi ct ed of a st at e sex of f ense f our years

ear l i er . As a r esul t , Medi na was ar r est ed f or vi ol at i ng t he Sex

Of f ender Not i f i cat i on and Regi st r at i on Act , al so known as SORNA, 18

U. S. C. 2250. He t hen pl ed gui l t y and was sent enced t o a t hi r t y-

mont h pr i son t er m, t o be f ol l owed by a t went y- year t er m of

super vi sed r el ease.

The super vi sed r el ease por t i on of t he sentence i ncl uded

var i ous condi t i ons t hat Medi na must f ol l ow or f ace r et ur ni ng t o

pr i son. Medi na now chal l enges t wo of t hose condi t i ons as wel l t he

l engt h of t he super vi sed r el ease t er m. One of t he t wo condi t i ons

r est r i ct s Medi na f r om accessi ng or possessi ng a wi de r ange of

sexual l y st i mul at i ng mat er i al . The ot her r equi r es Medi na t o submi t

t o peni l e pl et hysmogr aph t est i ng - - a par t i cul ar l y i nt r usi ve

pr ocedur e - - i f t he sex of f ender t r eatment pr ogr ami n whi ch he must

par t i ci pat e as a condi t i on of hi s super vi sed r el ease chooses t o use

such t est i ng.

We hol d t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed i n set t i ng t he

l engt h of t he super vi sed r el ease t er m. We f ur t her hol d t hat t he

Di st r i ct Cour t i nadequat el y j ust i f i ed t he i mposi t i on of t he

super vi sed r el ease condi t i ons that Medi na chal l enges. We t her ef or e

vacat e Medi na' s super vi sed r el ease sent ence ter mand the condi t i ons

chal l enged on t hi s appeal , and remand f or r e- sent enci ng.

-2-


3/42

I.

Medi na has a l ong cr i mi nal hi st or y, i ncl udi ng r obber y,

at t empt ed r obber y, and ( non- domest i c) bat t er y convi ct i ons. Hi s

onl y sex of f ense, and t he sour ce of hi s r egi st r at i on obl i gat i ons

under SORNA, i s a 2008 convi ct i on i n I ndi ana f or sexual bat t er y of

a mi nor . The pr e- sent ence r epor t ' s descr i pt i on of t he

ci r cumst ances of t he I ndi ana of f ense - - a descr i pt i on Medi na di d

not di sput e - - i s ver y di st ur bi ng.

Accor di ng t o the r epor t , Medi na' s t hr ee- year - ol d

st epdaught er t ol d hi s t hen- wi f e i n 2007 t hat Medi na had " ' peed' i n

her mout h. " Medi na' s t hen- wi f e pr oceeded t o ask her t hr ee other

chi l dr en i f Medi na had "had any i nappr opr i at e cont act wi t h t hem. "

The r epor t st at ed t hat Medi na' s t hen- wi f e l ear ned t hat Medi na had

" f ondl ed" hi s seven- year - ol d st epdaught er on "t hr ee or f our

separ at e occasi ons. "

Medi na ul t i mat el y pl ed gui l t y to a si ngl e count of sexual

bat t ery of a mi nor . The convi ct i on was based on Medi na' s abuse of

t he seven- year - ol d st epdaught er . Medi na was sent enced t o seven-

and- a- hal f year s i n pr i son, of whi ch he ser ved t hr ee year s bef or e

he was r el eased on pr obat i on i n J ul y of 2011.

Af t er r el ease on pr obat i on, Medi na l i ved i n I ndi ana and

hel d a j ob t her e. On Apr i l 29, 2012, however , he qui t t hat j ob.

Then, on May 3, he f ai l ed t o r epor t f or a pol ygr aph exami nat i on

t hat t he t er ms of hi s pr obat i on r equi r ed. On May 11, he was

-3-


4/42

suspended f r omI ndi ana' s Sex Of f ender Treat ment Progr am. Some t i me

t hat same mont h, Medi na moved t o Puer t o Ri co.

On J anuary 10, 2013, Medi na was ar r est ed i n Puer t o Ri co

f or vi ol at i ng SORNA because he had f ai l ed t o r egi st er t her e as a

sex of f ender , as he was r equi r ed to do as a consequence of hi s

ear l i er I ndi ana convi ct i on. See 18 U. S. C. 2250( a) . Two mont hs

l at er , on Apr i l 5, 2013, Medi na ent er ed i nt o a pl ea agr eement . The

Di st r i ct Cour t accept ed Medi na' s pl ea t o t he SORNA of f ense that

same day. On J ul y 8, 2013, t he Di st r i ct Cour t sent enced Medi na t o

t hi r t y mont hs of i ncar cer at i on, f ol l owed by twent y year s of

super vi sed r el ease.

Medi na now appeal s t o t hi s cour t . 1 He chal l enges cer t ai n

aspect s of t he super vi sed r el ease por t i on of hi s sent ence. We

consi der t hose chal l enges i n t ur n.

II.

Medi na f i r st ar gues t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t er r ed when i t

i mposed a super vi sed r el ease t er m of t went y year s. Medi na t r aces

t hat er r or t o t he Di str i ct Cour t ' s cl assi f i cat i on of hi s f ai l ur e-

t o- r egi st er of f ense under SORNA as a "sex of f ense. "

Under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, a convi ct i on f or a "sex

of f ense" r esul t s i n a r ecommended r ange f or a ter m of super vi sed

1 Medi na' s pl ea agr eement i ncl uded a wai ver - of - appeal cl ause,but t he gover nment concedes t hat Medi na never knowi ngl y wai ved hi sr i ght t o chal l enge the super vi sed r el ease ter m and condi t i ons onappeal si nce t he Di st r i ct Cour t assured Medi na at t he pl ea hear i ngt hat such chal l enges woul d be pr eser ved.

-4-


5/42

r el ease t hat spans f r om a l ower bound of t he st at ut or y mi ni mum of

f i ve year s t o an upper bound of l i f e. See 18 U. S. C. 3583( k) ;

U. S. S. G. 5D1. 2( b) ( 2) . But Medi na ar gues t hat t he gui del i nes do

not act ual l y t r eat a SORNA vi ol at i on as a "sex of f ense. " And t hus

Medi na argues t hat , under t he gui del i nes, t he act ual r ecommended

t er m of super vi sed r el i ef f or t he SORNA of f ense i s onl y the

st atut ory mi ni mum of f i ve years, wi t h no hi gher maxi mum t er m. See

Uni t ed St ates v. Goodwi n, 717 F. 3d 511, 520 ( 7t h Ci r . 2013) .

The gui del i nes ar e not bi ndi ng on t he Di st r i ct Cour t .

Uni t ed St ates v. Booker , 543 U. S. 220, 245 ( 2005) . A mi st aken

appl i cat i on of t he gui del i nes, however , can const i t ut e a r ever si bl e

sent enci ng er r or . That i s because "[ o] nl y af t er a cour t has

cor r ect l y cal cul at ed t he appl i cabl e [ gui del i nes r ecommendat i on]

. . . can i t pr oper l y exer ci se i t s di scr et i on t o sent ence a

def endant wi t hi n or out si de t he appl i cabl e Gui del i nes r ange. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Mi l l n- I saac, 749 F. 3d 57, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) .

Thus, Medi na cont ends, we must vacat e hi s super vi sed r el ease

sent ence because t he Di st r i ct Cour t mi s- cl assi f i ed hi s SORNA

of f ense as a "sex of f ense" and t hus commi t t ed a gui del i nes

cal cul at i on er r or .

I n det er mi ni ng t he appr opr i at e st andar d of r evi ew, we

note t hat Medi na di d obj ect t o t he r ecommended t erm of super vi sed

r el ease set f or t h i n t he pr obat i on of f i ce' s pr e- sent ence r epor t .

That r epor t cl assi f i ed Medi na' s SORNA of f ense as a "sex of f ense. "

-5-


6/42

That r epor t t hus r ecommended t hat Medi na r ecei ve a t er m of

super vi sed r el i ef somewher e wi t hi n a r ange f r omf i ve year s t o l i f e.

Medi na di d not , however , pr ess t hat same obj ect i on t o t he Di st r i ct

Cour t at t he sent enci ng hear i ng. And Medi na f ai l ed t o do so even

t hough he had an oppor t uni t y t o make t hat obj ect i on, and even

t hough t he Di st r i ct Cour t adopt ed t he same gui del i nes cal cul at i on

as the report.

I n consequence, t he gover nment ar gues t hat we may r evi ew

Medi na' s chal l enge t o t he pr oper cl assi f i cat i on of hi s SORNA

of f ense onl y under t he st r i ct , pl ai n er r or st andar d. Medi na

di sput es t hat . For pur poses of t hi s appeal , however , we may assume

t he pl ai n er r or st andar d appl i es wi t hout pr ej udi ci ng Medi na. 2 And

t hat i s because Medi na' s chal l enge succeeds even under t hat more

onerous st andard.

The Di st r i ct Cour t set t he t er m of super vi sed r el ease

af t er cal cul at i ng t he gui del i nes r ange f or t hat t er m t o be f i ve

year s to l i f e. That cal cul at i on was er r oneous, as t he gover nment

2 Thi s Ci r cui t has never deci ded what st andar d of r evi ewappl i es when a def endant obj ect s t o a pr e- sent ence repor t but doesnot r easser t t hat obj ect i on at sent enci ng, and ot her ci r cui t s havedi ver ged. Compare Uni t ed St ates v. Hur st , 228 F. 3d 751, 760- 61( 6t h Ci r . 2000) ( hol di ng t hat a sent enci ng cour t need not addr essa def endant ' s obj ect i ons t o a pr e- sent ence r epor t wher e t he

def endant "di d not expr essl y cal l t hem t o t he cour t ' s at t ent i ondur i ng t he sent enci ng hear i ng" ) wi t h Uni t ed St at es v. Sager , 227F. 3d 1138, 1148 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) ( " I t i s t echni cal l y enough, ofcour se, t o f i l e a wr i t t en obj ect i on t o t he [ pr e- sent ence r epor t ] ,but an ast ut e at t or ney f i l i ng such an obj ect i on woul d al so r ai set he i ssue agai n at sent enci ng i f i t appear s t o have goneunaddr essed. " ) .

-6-


7/42

now concedes. The t er m "sex of f ense" i n sect i on 5D1. 2( b) of t he

sent enci ng gui del i nes does not encompass a SORNA vi ol at i on f or

f ai l i ng t o r egi st er as a sex of f ender . Our r easons f or so

concl udi ng ar e t he same as t hose set f or t h i n t he Sevent h Ci r cui t

pr ecedent t hat t he gover nment i nvokes i n concedi ng t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s er r or . See Goodwi n, 717 F. 3d at 519- 20.

Fur t her , t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s cont r ar y i nt er pr et at i on of

t he meani ng of "sex of f ense" was - - as t he Sevent h Ci r cui t al so

hel d i n Goodwi n, and as t he government al so now concedes - - " ( 1) an

er r or or def ect ( 2) t hat i s cl ear or obvi ous ( 3) af f ecti ng t he

def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s. " I d. at 518. And whi l e t he

gover nment does not speci f i cal l y make t he f ur t her concessi on

t hat t he er r or "ser i ousl y af f ect[ ed] t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or

publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs, " J ohnson v. Uni t ed

St at es, 520 U. S. 461, 467 ( 1997) - - t he l ast pr ong of t he pl ai n-

er r or t est - - we bel i eve t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s er r or

necessar i l y had t hat ef f ect on t he sent enci ng, and t he gover nment

does not argue ot herwi se.

By mi s- cl assi f yi ng Medi na' s SORNA of f ense, t he Di st r i ct

Cour t i mposed a super vi sed r el ease t er m t hat i t bel i eved f el l

wi t hi n t he gui del i nes- r ecommended r ange. I n f act , however , t he

t er m i mposed was f our t i mes l onger t han t he t er m t he gui del i nes

act ual l y r ecommend. See Goodwi n, 717 F. 3d at 520- 21 ( expl ai ni ng

t he pr oper cal cul at i on, and f i ndi ng t he f our t h pl ai n- er r or pr ong

-7-


8/42

met under si mi l ar ci r cumst ances) ; cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Far r el l , 672

F. 3d 27, 37 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( f i ndi ng t he f our t h pr ong met wher e t he

gover nment di d not argue i t was not met , and wher e t he di st r i ct

cour t i mposed a sent ence based on er r oneous st at utory mi ni mum and

gui del i nes det er mi nat i ons) .

We t hus concl ude t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t di d commi t pl ai n

er r or . And, accor di ngl y, we vacat e and r emand so t hat t he Di st r i ct

Cour t may t ake account of t he gui del i nes' actual r ecommendat i on

r egar di ng t he appr opr i at e t er m of super vi sed r el ease f or Medi na' s

SORNA of f ense.

III.

Medi na al so chal l enges t wo condi t i ons t hat he must obey

f or t he dur at i on of hi s super vi sed r el ease t er m, however l ong i t

may t ur n out t o be. I n par t i cul ar , Medi na chal l enges a condi t i on

pr ohi bi t i ng hi m f r om possessi ng or accessi ng sexual l y st i mul at i ng

mat er i al s and a condi t i on mandat i ng hi s compl i ance wi t h peni l e

pl et hysmogr aph t est i ng i f hi s sex of f ender t r eat ment pr ogr am

r equi r es such t est i ng.

Ther e ar e t wo basi c ki nds of super vi sed r el ease

condi t i ons. The f i r st ki nd ar e mandat or y condi t i ons. By oper at i on

of st at ut e, mandat ory condi t i ons are aut omat i cal l y i mposed i n ever y

case i n whi ch a def endant r ecei ves super vi sed r el ease as par t of

hi s sent ence. See 18 U. S. C. 3583( d) . The second ki nd are

speci al condi t i ons. These condi t i ons ar e i mposed at t he di scr et i on

-8-


9/42

of t he di st r i ct cour t . See i d. The t wo condi t i ons t hat Medi na

chal l enges ar e of t hi s l at t er ki nd.

Al t hough di st r i ct cour t s have si gni f i cant di scr et i on t o

i mpose speci al condi t i ons of super vi sed r el ease, t hat di scr et i on i s

not unl i mi t ed. A di st r i ct cour t may i mpose a speci al condi t i on

onl y i f t he di st r i ct cour t f i r st det er mi nes t hat t he condi t i on:

( 1) i s r easonabl y r el at ed t o t he f act or s setf or t h i n [ 18 U. S. C. ] 3553( a) ( 1) , ( a) ( 2) ( B) ,( a) ( 2) ( C) , and ( a) ( 2) ( D) ;

( 2) i nvol ves no gr eat er depr i vat i on of l i ber t yt han i s r easonabl y necessar y f or t he pur posesset f or t h i n [ 18 U. S. C. ] 3553( a) ( 2) ( B) ,( a) ( 2) ( C) , and ( a) ( 2) ( D) ; and

( 3) i s consi st ent wi t h any per t i nent pol i cyst at ement s i ssued by t he Sentenci ng Commi ss i onpur suant t o 28 U. S. C. [ ] 994( a) .

18 U. S. C. 3583( d) .

I n t hi s way, t he gover ni ng st at ut e di r ect s di st r i ct

cour t s, bef or e i mposi ng a speci al condi t i on, t o t ake account of

" t he natur e and ci r cumst ances of t he of f ense and t he hi st ory and

char act er i st i cs of t he def endant , " i d. 3553( a) ( 1) , t he need "t o

af f or d adequat e det er r ence t o cr i mi nal conduct , " i d.

3553( a) ( 2) ( B) , t he need "t o pr ot ect t he publ i c f r om f ur t her

cr i mes of t he def endant , " i d. 3553( a) ( 2) ( C) , and t he need " t o

pr ovi de t he def endant wi t h needed educat i onal or vocat i onalt r ai ni ng, medi cal car e, or ot her cor r ect i onal t r eat ment i n t he most

ef f ect i ve manner , " i d. 3553( a) ( 2) ( D) . By r equi r i ng consi der at i on

of t hese f act or s, t he st at ut e ensur es t hat di st r i ct cour t s wi l l

-9-


10/42

i mpose a speci al condi t i on onl y i f t he condi t i on wi l l f ur t her at

l east one of " t he t hr ee l egi t i mat e st at ut or y pur poses of

det er r ence, pr ot ect i on of t he publ i c, and r ehabi l i t at i on. "3 Uni t ed

St ates v. Gement er a, 379 F. 3d 596, 600 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) ; accor d

Uni t ed St at es v. Yor k, 357 F. 3d 14, 20 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

But t he st at ut e does mor e t han i nst r uct di st r i ct cour t s

t o ensur e a "r easonabl [ e] r el at [ i on] " bet ween t he condi t i on and t he

sent enci ng goal s t he condi t i on i s i nt ended t o ser ve wi t h r espect t o

t he i ndi vi dual def endant . 18 U. S. C. 3583( d) . The st at ut e al so

r equi r es di st r i ct cour t s t o ensur e t he condi t i on "i nvol ves no

gr eat er depr i vat i on of l i ber t y than i s r easonabl y necessar y" gi ven

who t he def endant i s, t he def endant ' s of f ense and cr i mi nal hi st or y,

and t he ends of super vi sed r el ease. 4 See Uni t ed St ates v. Roy, 438

3 The r et r i but i ve pur pose, whi ch sent enci ng gener al l y may

al so ser ve, i s r ef l ect ed i n t he f ol l owi ng sent enci ng f act or setf or t h i n 18 U. S. C. 3553( a) ( 2) ( A) : " t he need f or t he sent encei mposed . . . t o ref l ect t he ser i ousness of t he of f ense, t o pr omot er espect f or t he l aw, and t o pr ovi de j ust puni shment f or t heof f ense. " See Tapi a v. Uni t ed St at es, 131 S. Ct . 2382, 2387- 88( 2011) ( expl ai ni ng t hat 3553( a) ( 2) ( A) concer ns "r et r i but i on") .But t he st at ut e gover ni ng t he i mposi t i on of a speci al condi t i on ofsuper vi sed r el ease speci f i cal l y omi t s t hi s f act or f r om t he onest hat a di st r i ct cour t may consi der i n i mposi ng a speci al condi t i on.See 18 U. S. C. 3583( d) ( 1) ; Tapi a, 131 S. Ct . at 2388 ( " [ A] cour tmay not t ake account of r et r i but i on ( t he f i r st pur pose l i st ed i n 3553( a) ( 2) ) when i mposi ng a t er m of super vi sed r el ease. " ) . That

omi ssi on r ef l ect s t he di st i nct pur poses t hat super vi sed r el easeai ms t o accompl i sh.

4 The st at ut e addi t i onal l y r equi r es consi der at i on of " anyper t i nent pol i cy st atement s i ssued by the Sent enci ng Commi ssi on, "18 U. S. C. 3583( d) ( 3) , but t he par t i es i dent i f y no pol i cyst at ement s t hat ar e per t i nent t o t he i ssues bef or e us.

-10-


11/42

F. 3d 140, 144 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 436 F. 3d

307, 311 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . And f i nal l y, our pr ecedent f ur t her

r equi r es t hat t he speci al condi t i on "have adequat e evi dent i ar y

suppor t i n t he r ecor d. " Roy, 438 F. 3d at 144.

Wi t h that f r amewor k i n mi nd, we now consi der t he t wo

speci al condi t i ons that ar e at i ssue i n t hi s appeal . Wi t h r espect

t o each, Medi na cont ends t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t f ai l ed t o pr ovi de

t he stat ut or i l y r equi r ed j ust i f i cat i on.

IV.

We f i r st addr ess Medi na' s chal l enge t o t he Di st r i ct

Cour t ' s i mposi t i on of t he speci al condi t i on concer ni ng sexual l y

st i mul at i ng mat er i al . That condi t i on pr ovi des that Medi na may not :

vi ew, use, possess, pur chase, di st r i but eand/ or subscr i be t o any f or m of por nogr aphy,er ot i ca or sexual l y st i mul at i ng vi sual oraudi t or y mat er i al , el ect r oni c medi a, comput erpr ogr ams or ser vi ces i ncl udi ng but not l i mi t ed

t o vi deos, movi es, pi ct ur es, magazi nes,l i t er at ur e, books, or ot her pr oduct s depi ct i ngi mages of nude adul t s or mi nor s i n a sexual l yexpl i ci t manner .

The condi t i on f ur t her f or bi ds Medi na f r om enter i ng any l ocat i on

wher e such mater i al can be accessed, and f r om "accessi ng any

mat er i al t hat r el at es t o t he act i vi t y i n whi ch t he def endant was

engaged i n commi t t i ng the i nst ant of f ense, namel y chi l dpornogr aphy. "5

5 Medi na does not chal l enge t hi s condi t i on as vague, and sowe do not express any opi ni on on whet her i t pr esent s a vagueness

-11-


12/42

Medi na chal l enges thi s condi t i on as a whol e. But Medi na

f i r st ar gues t hat t he l ast sent ence of t hi s condi t i on must be

vacat ed. He ar gues t hat t he t ext of t hi s l ast sent ence r eveal s

t hat i t i s desi gned f or a def endant who has been convi ct ed of a

"chi l d por nogr aphy" of f ense, a t ype of of f ense f or whi ch Medi na was

not even char ged. The gover nment concedes as much - - i n par t , no

doubt , because st r i ki ng t hi s por t i on of t he condi t i on has no

pr act i cal consequence. That i s because a separate, mandatory

condi t i on of super vi sed r el ease al r eady pr ohi bi t ed Medi na f r om

commi t t i ng "anot her Feder al , St at e, or l ocal cr i me dur i ng t he t er m

of super vi si on. " 18 U. S. C. 3583( d) . That condi t i on t hus

necessar i l y pr ohi bi t ed Medi na f r om possessi ng i l l egal mat er i al ,

i ncl udi ng, f or exampl e, chi l d por nogr aphy. See 18 U. S. C. 2252.

Wi t h t hat por t i on of t he condi t i on out of t he way, our

at t ent i on f ocuses on t he r emai nder of t he condi t i on, whi ch woul d

pr ohi bi t Medi na f r om possessi ng and accessi ng "any f or m of

por nogr aphy, er ot i ca or sexual l y st i mul at i ng vi sual or audi t or y

mat er i al . " I n pr act i cal ef f ect , t hi s condi t i on r estr i ct s onl y

"l egal mat er i al i nvol vi ng consent i ng adul t s, " Uni t ed St at es v.

pr obl em. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Per azza- Mer cado, 553 F. 3d 65, 81( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( Howar d, J . , di ssent i ng i n par t ) ( r ai si ng vaguenessconcer ns wi t h r espect t o a condi t i on t hat pr ohi bi t ed a def endantf r om possessi ng "any ki nd of por nogr aphi c mat er i al " ) .

-12-


13/42

Per azza- Mer cado, 553 F. 3d 65, 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) , and t he

gover nment does not ar gue ot her wi se t o us. 6

The gover nment ar gues, as i t di d wi t h r espect t o Medi na' s

chal l enge t o t he l engt h of hi s super vi sed r el ease t er m, t hat we may

r evi ew t he i mposi t i on of t hi s condi t i on onl y f or pl ai n er r or and

not f or abuse of di scr et i on as woul d ot her wi se be t he case. See

i d. at 69. Medi na r esponds t hat he obj ected when t he pr obat i on

of f i ce recommended the condi t i on i n the pr e- sent ence r epor t .

6 I n t hei r br i ef s, Medi na and t he gover nment addr ess t hei rar gument s t o t he val i di t y of t he speci al condi t i on as a whol e.They do not separat el y di scuss t he par t s of t he condi t i on t hatr ef er t o "erot i ca" and "sexual l y st i mul at i ng vi sual and audi t or ymat er i al . " Nei t her par t y t her ef or e addr esses whet her thecondi t i on, i n addi t i on t o pr ohi bi t i ng Medi na f r om possessi ng oraccessi ng adul t por nogr aphy, al so pr ohi bi t s Medi na f r ompossessi ngor accessi ng ot her wi se l egal er ot i c mat er i al s i nvol vi ng si mul at edsexual depi ct i ons of chi l dr en, such as "vi r t ual chi l d por nogr aphy. "See Ashcrof t v. Fr ee Speech Coal i t i on, 535 U. S. 234, 250- 56 ( 2002)( hol di ng unconst i t ut i onal a cri mi nal pr ohi bi t i on on "vi r t ual chi l d

por nogr aphy" whi ch does not i nvol ve i mages of act ual chi l dr en) . I nt he absence of br i ef i ng f r om t he par t i es, we wi l l not addr ess her ewhet her t he condi t i on i s pr oper l y i nt er pr et ed t o pr ohi bi t Medi naf r om possessi ng such mat er i al , nor whet her t hat par t i cul ar aspectof t he condi t i on mi ght be adequat el y expl ai ned on t hi s r ecor d byt he nat ur e of Medi na' s pr i or of f ense. See Per azza- Mer cado, 553F. 3d at 74- 79 ( vacat i ng a condi t i on t hat pr ohi bi t ed "possessi on ofany ki nd of por nogr aphi c mat er i al " wi t hout addr essi ng t hi s i ssue) .

Li kewi se, t he par t i es' br i ef s do not separ at el y addr ess t hepor t i on of t he condi t i on pr ohi bi t i ng Medi na f r oment er i ng l ocat i onswher e sexual l y st i mul at i ng mat er i al s may be accessed. That por t i onof t he condi t i on was not pr esent i n Per azza- Mer cado, and i t may

r ai se di st i nct i ssues. Cf . i d.

at 79- 80 ( Howar d J . , di ssent i ng)( expr essi ng concer n t hat "al l owi ng unf et t er ed access t o adul tpor nogr aphy coul d l ead [ a def endant ] . . . t o pl aces wher eoppor t uni t i es may exi st t o commi t ot her cr i mes agai nst mi nor s" ) .

Gi ven t he par t i es' l ack of at t ent i on t o those aspect s of t hi ssuper vi sed r el ease condi t i on, we wi l l l eave t hem t o the Di st r i ctCour t on remand.

-13-


14/42

However , Medi na di d not r ai se hi s obj ect i on at t he sent enci ng

hear i ng, despi t e t he oppor t uni t y t hat he had t o do so and despi t e

t he f act t hat he r ai sed ot her i ssues. Thus, her e, t oo, we wi l l

assume t hat t he pl ai n er r or st andar d appl i es, as, once agai n, we

f i nd rever si bl e er r or even under t hat more demandi ng st andard.

I n chal l engi ng t he condi t i on, Medi na r el i es pr i mar i l y on

our deci si on i n Per azza- Mer cado. Ther e, we vacat ed on pl ai n- er r or

r evi ew a super vi sed r el ease condi t i on t hat i mposed a compl et e ban

on a def endant ' s possessi on of por nogr aphi c mat er i al s. We

expl ai ned t hat a di st r i ct cour t must "pr ovi de a r easoned and

case- speci f i c expl anat i on f or t he sent ence i t i mposes. " I d. at 75

( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Gi l man, 478 F. 3d 440, 446 ( 1st Ci r .

2007) ) . And we concl uded t hat t he di st r i ct cour t had f ai l ed t o do

so. See i d.

We di d observe i n Per azza- Mer cado t hat " ' a cour t ' s

r easoni ng can of t en be i nf er r ed' af t er an exami nat i on of t he

r ecor d. " I d. ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. J i mnez- Bel t r e, 440 F. 3d

514, 519 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ( en banc) ) . But we concl uded t hat no

adequat e expl anat i on f or t he por nogr aphy r est r i ct i on coul d be

i nf er r ed f r om t he r ecor d. I d. at 76. I n par t i cul ar , we obser ved,

t her e was no evi dence i n t he r ecor d suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he

concl usi on t hat por nogr aphy had "cont r i but ed t o [Per azza' s] of f ense

or woul d be l i kel y t o do so i n t he f ut ur e. " I d. That was so even

t hough Per azza' s cr i me of convi ct i on ( "knowi ngl y engagi ng i n sexual

-14-


15/42

cont act wi t h a f emal e under t he age of t wel ve" ) and admi t t ed past

behavi or ( whi ch i ncl uded a "pat t er n of i l l i ci t conduct t owar d young

gi r l s") wer e "cause f or gr eat concer n. " I d. at 66, 76. We

t her ef or e concl uded t hat t he di st r i ct cour t had commi t t ed pl ai n

er r or i n i mposi ng t he condi t i on. I d. at 75.

Here, we are bound by Per azza- Mercado. The Di st r i ct

Cour t di d not expr essl y j ust i f y t he condi t i on i n t er ms of t he

st at ut or y consi der at i ons of det er r ence, pr ot ect i on of t he publ i c,

and r ehabi l i t at i on - - or i n any ot her t er ms. See i d. Nor can t he

Di st r i ct Cour t ' s unar t i cul at ed r easoni ng "' be i nf er r ed' af t er an

exami nat i on of t he r ecor d. " I d. As i n Per azza- Mer cado, " t her e i s

no evi dence i n t he r ecor d" t o i ndi cat e t hat such mater i al

"cont r i but ed t o [ Medi na' s] of f ense or woul d be l i kel y" t o

cont r i but e t o r eci di vi sm i n t he f ut ur e gi ven Medi na' s par t i cul ar

hi st or y and char acter i st i cs. I d. at 76.

The pr obat i on of f i cer here di d r ecommend t he condi t i on i n

t he pr e- sent ence r epor t , unl i ke i n Per azza- Mer cado, wher e t he

r epor t di d not ment i on such a condi t i on at al l , see i d. at 74. But

t he pr obat i on of f i cer pr ovi ded no expl anat i on f or t he condi t i on - -

not even i n r esponse t o Medi na' s obj ect i on. She si mpl y l ef t t he

deci si on whet her t o i mpose t he condi t i on " t o t he sound di scr et i on

of t he [ Di str i ct ] Cour t . "

Nor , under Per azza- Mer cado, can t he r equi r ed expl anat i on

be der i ved f r om Medi na' s cri mi nal hi st or y. Medi na' s f ai l ur e- t o-

-15-


16/42

r egi st er of f ense di d not i t sel f , qui t e obvi ousl y, i nvol ve t he use

of por nogr aphi c or ot her sexual l y st i mul at i ng mat er i al s. And,

r evol t i ng as t he act i ons t hat l ed t o Medi na' s 2008 convi ct i on ar e,

t he r ecor d her e, under t he cont r ol l i ng r easoni ng of Per azza-

Mer cado, f ai l s t o reveal a l i nk bet ween Medi na' s commi ssi on of t hat

of f ense and t he pr ohi bi t ed adul t mat er i al s. See i d. at 66, 76.

The gover nment r esponds by i dent i f yi ng one di st i nct i on

between t hi s case and Per azza- Mercado. There, we not ed t hat " t here

was no suggest i on i n t he [ pr e- sent ence r epor t ] or at sent enci ng

t hat appel l ant had abused or even possessed por nogr aphy i n t he

past . " I d. at 76 ( emphasi s added) . Her e, by cont r ast , as t he

gover nment poi nt s out , t he pr e- sent ence r epor t does cont ai n a

r ef er ence t o t he def endant ' s use of pornogr aphy at appr oxi matel y

t he same t i me as hi s under l yi ng sex of f ense. Speci f i cal l y, t he

r epor t not es t hat Medi na' s ex- wi f e " i ndi cat ed t hat t hey of t en

watched pornogr aphy t oget her whi l e havi ng i nt er cour se. "

But not hi ng i n t he r ecor d l i nks t hi s si ngl e r ef er ence,

i nvol vi ng l awf ul adul t behavi or , t o t he cr i mi nal act s t hat ser ve as

t he basi s f or t he speci al super vi sed r el ease condi t i on. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Ramos, 763 F. 3d 45, 64 n. 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( decl i ni ng t o

di st i ngui sh Per azza- Mer cado based on a si mi l ar r ef er ence t o adul t

por nogr aphy i n t he pr e- sent ence r epor t , because "not hi ng i n t he

r ecor d j ust i f i es, as f ar as we can t el l , t he concl usi on t hat

vi ewi ng adul t por nogr aphy was a habi t t hat ' cont r i but ed t o [ t he

-16-


17/42

def endant ' s] of f ense or woul d be l i kel y t o do so i n t he f ut ur e' ") .

Nor can i t suf f i ce f or t he gover nment t o asser t , as i t does, t hat

t he condi t i on may be i nf er ent i al l y j ust i f i ed because t her e i s a

gener al cor r espondence bet ween sex of f ender r eci di vi sm and t he use

of por nogr aphy. I f such an asser t ed cor r espondence suf f i ced, we

woul d not have i nval i dated t he pornogr aphy ban i n Per azza- Mer cado.

See 553 F. 3d at 78. We t hus concl ude t hat , gi ven our cont r ol l i ng

pr ecedent , t he recor d bef or e us " si mpl y does not suppor t t he

concl usi on t hat t he condi t i on woul d pr omot e t he goal s of super vi sed

r el ease wi t hout ef f ect i ng a gr eat er depr i vat i on of l i ber t y than

r easonabl y necessar y t o achi eve t hose goal s. " I d. at 75.

The government ' s f i nal at t empt t o def end t he condi t i on

al so f ai l s. The gover nment cont ends t hat our deci si on i n Uni t ed

St at es v. Sebast i an, 612 F. 3d 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) , i ndi cat es t hat

t he Di st r i ct Cour t was not obl i ged t o of f er mor e of an expl anat i on

f or t hi s speci al condi t i on t han was gi ven. But t hat case, unl i ke

t hi s one and unl i ke Per azza- Mer cado, di d not i nvol ve a "t ot al ban

on . . . possessi on of any por nogr aphy i n t he home. " I d. at 52.

The condi t i on i n Sebast i an i nst ead pr ohi bi t ed possess i on of

por nogr aphy onl y " i f [ Sebast i an' s] [ sex of f ender ] t r eat ment pr ogr am

mandated such a ban. " I d. Sebast i an t hus expl ai ned t hat t hi s

"condi t i onal l i mi t at i on" was " har dl y t he same" as t he bl anket ban

i n Per azza- Mer cado, and di d " l i t t l e mor e t han r equi r e Sebast i an t o

f ol l ow t he r ul es of any pr ogr am he may be requi r ed t o at t end" as

-17-


18/42

par t of hi s super vi sed r el ease. I d. I n consequence, we concl uded

t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s expl anat or y obl i gat i ons had been met , as

t hey were not t he same as t hey had been i n Per azza- Mercado. I d.

Her e, t hough, t he ban i s t ot al , as i n Per azza- Mer cado,

r at her t han condi t i oned on t he r equi r ement s i mposed by a sex

of f ender t r eatment pr ogr am, as i n Sebast i an. And t hus, we bel i eve,

as we r ecent l y hel d i n a si mi l ar case, t hat Per azza- Mer cado sets

f or t h t he appr opr i at e st andar d f or det er mi ni ng whet her t he

condi t i on i s j ust i f i ed. See Ramos, 763 F. 3d at 64 n. 29 ( f ol l owi ng

Per azza- Mer cado, and di st i ngui shi ng Sebast i an, wher e the case

i nvol ved a t otal ban on pornogr aphy possessi on) .

Under t hat cont r ol l i ng pr ecedent , t he i mposi t i on of t hi s

condi t i on, on t hi s r ecor d, i s pl ai n er r or . See i d. at 64; Per azza-

Mercado, 553 F. 3d at 76. There "may wel l be a r eason t o i mpose a

pornogr aphy ban" i n t hi s case. Per azza- Mer cado, 553 F. 3d at 76.

But i f so, t he Di st r i ct Cour t has not yet provi ded i t . Thus, we

vacat e t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s i mposi t i on of t hi s speci al condi t i on.

V.

We now t ur n t o Medi na' s r emai ni ng chal l enge. Medi na

obj ect s t o the Di st r i ct Cour t ' s r equi r ement t hat he submi t t o

peni l e pl et hysmogr aph, or PPG, t est i ng, i f t he sex of f ender

t r eat ment pr ogr am he must par t i ci pat e i n as a condi t i on of hi s

super vi sed r el ease r equi r es such t est i ng.

-18-


19/42

I n br i ngi ng t hi s chal l enge, Medi na does not cont est t he

r equi r ement t hat he under go sex of f ender t r eatment as a speci al

condi t i on of super vi sed r el ease. See Uni t ed St at es v. Mor al es-

Cr uz, 712 F. 3d 71, 75- 76 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( f i ndi ng no abuse of

di scr et i on i n t hat case i n t he i mposi t i on of a sex of f ender

t r eat ment speci al condi t i on i n connect i on wi t h a SORNA convi ct i on) .

And t he t r eat ment condi t i on t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t i mposed does

not r equi r e, by i t s t er ms, t hat t he sex of f ender t r eat ment pr ogr am

Medi na must compl ete act ual l y use PPG t est i ng. 7 I n f act , t he

condi t i on does not addr ess at al l how t he t r eatment pr ogr ammay use

such t est i ng. But t he condi t i on does speci f i cal l y obl i ge Medi na t o

compl y wi t h PPG t est i ng i f hi s par t i cul ar t r eat ment pr ogr amchooses

t o or der such t est i ng. And i t i s t hat mandat or y compl i ance

obl i gat i on t o whi ch Medi na obj ect s.

PPG t est i ng "i nvol ves pl aci ng a pr essur e- sensi t i ve devi ce

ar ound a man' s peni s, pr esent i ng hi m wi t h an ar r ay of sexual l y

st i mul at i ng i mages, and det er mi ni ng hi s l evel of sexual at t r act i on

by measur i ng mi nut e changes i n hi s er ect i l e r esponses. " Uni t ed

7 The condi t i on pr ovi des:The def endant shal l undergo a sexof f ense- speci f i ceval uat i on and par t i ci pat e i n a sex of f ender

t r eat ment / and or [ si c] ment al heal t h pr ogr amar r anged byt he Pr obat i on Of f i cer . The def endant shal l abi de by al lr ul es, r equi r ement s, and condi t i ons of t he sex of f endert r eat ment pr ogr am( s) , i ncl udi ng submi ssi on t o t est i ng;such as pol ygr aph, peni l e pl et hysmogr aph ( PPG) , AbelAssessment s, vi sual r eact i on t est i ng or any ot her t est i ngavai l abl e at t he t i me of hi s r el ease.

-19-


20/42

St at es v. Weber , 451 F. 3d 552, 554 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ( quot i ng J ason

R. Odeshoo, Of Penol ogy and Per ver si t y: The Use of Peni l e

Pl ethysmogr aphy on Convi ct ed Chi l d Sex Of f enders, 14 Temp. Pol . &

Ci v. Rt s. L. Rev. 1, 2 ( 2004) ) . Thus, wher e t he por nogr aphy- ban

condi t i on seeks t o l i mi t Medi na' s vi ewi ng of por nogr aphi c mat er i al ,

PPG t est i ng af f i r mat i vel y r equi r es i t , and i n ext r emel y i nvasi ve

ci r cumst ances. See i d. Test i ng may t ake as l ong as several hour s

t o compl et e per sessi on. I d. at 563.

The t est i ng i s cont r over si al , bot h as t o whether i t i s

ef f ect i ve and as t o whet her i t i s undul y i nvasi ve and t hus

degr adi ng. See i d. And, i n consequence of such concer ns, t wo of

our si st er ci r cui t s have i mposed subst ant i al expl anat or y

obl i gat i ons on di st r i ct cour t s t hat choose to mandat e submi ssi on t o

PPG t est i ng i f pr escr i bed by a r equi r ed sex of f ender t r eat ment

pr ogr am. See Uni t ed St ates v. McLaur i n, 731 F. 3d 258, 263 ( 2d Ci r .

2013) ; Weber , 451 F. 3d at 568- 69.

Medi na rel i es on t hese pr ecedent s i n cont endi ng that t he

Di str i ct Cour t f ai l ed t o of f er a suf f i ci ent j ust i f i cat i on f or t he

PPG condi t i on her e. Bef or e di r ect l y addr essi ng t hat cont ent i on,

however , we must f i r st addr ess t he gover nment ' s argument t hat t hi s

Ci r cui t ' s pr ecedent l i mi t s t he scope of our r evi ew unt i l such t i me

as t he t r eat ment pr ogr am act ual l y r equi r es Medi na to submi t t o PPG

t est i ng.

-20-


21/42

A.

I n ar gui ng t hat our r evi ew i s l i mi t ed, t he gover nment

does not di sput e t hat Medi na pr oper l y pr eserved hi s obj ect i on t o

t hi s condi t i on. Medi na f i r st obj ect ed t o t he pr e- sent ence r epor t ' s

r ecommendat i on t hat he be r equi r ed t o submi t t o PPG t est i ng i f

order ed t o do so as par t of a sex of f ender t r eatment pr ogr am.

Medi na l odged t hat obj ect i on "on Dauber t / Frye unr el i abi l i t y

st andards" 8 as wel l as by cont endi ng t hat PPG t est i ng " i s

physi cal l y i nvasi ve and sci ent i f i cal l y quest i onabl e. " Medi na went

on t o expl ai n t hat such t est i ng " i s degr adi ng and vi ol at es t he

def endant ' s r i ght t o be f r ee f r om cr uel , degr adi ng, i nhuman

t r eat ment and hi s r i ght t o pr i vacy and t o be pr ot ect ed f r ommedi cal

abuse. "

Then, at sentenci ng, Medi na' s counsel r enewed t he

obj ect i on. Medi na' s counsel emphasi zed t hat she "obj ect [ ed] t o t he

i mposi t i on of t hat t r eat ment , i n par t i cul ar t o t he PPG. We

8 The r ef erences pr esumabl y were t o Dauber t v. Mer r el l DowPhar maceut i cal s, I nc. , 509 U. S. 579 ( 1993) , and Fr ye v. Uni t edSt at es, 293 F. 1013 ( D. C. Ci r . 1923) , whi ch set f or t h t he i nqui r yi nt o sci ent i f i c rel i abi l i t y t hat a di str i ct cour t must under t akebef or e admi t t i ng exper t t est i mony i nt o evi dence. Al t hough nei t herDauber t nor Frye has a di r ect appl i cat i on t o condi t i ons ofsuper vi sed r el ease, t he def endant appears t o have i nvoked t hose

cases as a shor t hand way of at t acki ng t he r el i abi l i t y of PPGt est i ng. And t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t has obser ved t hat " [ c] our t s haveuni f or ml y decl ar ed t hat t he r esul t s of [ PPG] t est s ar e' i nadmi ssi bl e as evi dence' " under t he Dauber t st andar d because"' t her e ar e no accept ed st andar ds f or t hi s t est i n t he sci ent i f i ccommuni t y. ' " Weber , 451 F. 3d at 565 n. 15 ( quot i ng Doe ex r el .RudyGl anzer v. Gl anzer , 232 F. 3d 1258, 1266 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) ) .

-21-


22/42

under st and i t ' s i nvasi ve, i t ' s humi l i at i ng, i t hasn' t even passed

t he Dauber t st andard. "

Conf r ont ed wi t h a t i mel y obj ect i on t o a speci al condi t i on

of super vi sed r el ease, we or di nar i l y woul d r evi ew a di st r i ct

cour t ' s i mposi t i on of t hat aspect of t he sent ence f or abuse of

di scr et i on. See Per azza- Mer cado, 553 F. 3d at 69. But t he

government argues t hat Medi na' s bur den t o show er r or i n t he

i mposi t i on of t he sent ence i s even gr eat er her e because t her e i s

necessar i l y uncer t ai nt y over how and why PPG t est i ng woul d actual l y

be used on Medi na - - i f , t hat i s, i t ever i s used at al l .

Under our deci si on i n Sebast i an, t he gover nment argues,

t he cont i ngent nat ur e of t hi s condi t i on r equi r es Medi na t o show

t hat PPG t est i ng i s "f aci al l y unr easonabl e" i n or der t o i nval i dat e

i t on di r ect appeal . 612 F. 3d at 52. And t hat means, t he

gover nment f ur t her cont ends, t hat Medi na' s chal l enge must f ai l f or

one of t wo reasons.

Fi r st , t he gover nment ar gues t hat t he chal l enge i s

pr emat ur e because t he act ual appl i cat i on of t he t est i ng wi l l occur ,

i f at al l , onl y i n t he f ut ur e, and wi l l depend on t he pr ocedur es

t hat t he sex of f ender t r eatment pr ogr am chooses t o use. Second,

t he gover nment argues t hat , t o t he ext ent t he chal l enge i s not

pr emat ur e, i t i s st i l l wi t hout mer i t because PPG t est i ng i s "wi del y

used f or eval uat i ng and t r eat i ng sex of f ender s l i ke" Medi na and

t hus t he r equi r ement t o submi t t o i t i f pr escr i bed by a t r eat ment

-22-


23/42


24/42

i r r el evant or even i l l egal , or maybe t he movement wi l l be i n a

di f f er ent di r ect i on al t oget her . . . . ") ; Lee, 502 F. 3d at 451 ( "We

cannot specul ate on what wi l l happen by 2021 wi t h respect t o peni l e

pl et hysmogr aph t est i ng. For exampl e, by t hen, t he t est may be hel d

t o vi ol at e due pr ocess r i ght s. Or , i t s r el i abi l i t y wi l l have been

debunked. Or , per haps a l ess i nt r usi ve t est wi l l have r epl aced

i t . " ) .

But t hi s Ci r cui t concl uded i n Uni t ed St at es v. Davi s, 242

F. 3d 49, 51 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( per cur i um) , t hat a chal l enge t o even

a cont i ngent super vi sed r el ease condi t i on was r i pe, and "not

hypot het i cal , " wher e t he j udgment expl i ci t l y spel l ed out t he

condi t i on and t he def endant chal l enged " t he speci al condi t i on

i t sel f , not i t s appl i cat i on or enf or cement . " I d. We expl ai ned

t hat " [ t ] he j udgment i mposi ng sent ence, of whi ch t he chal l enged

speci al condi t i on i s a par t , i s a f i nal j udgment . " I d. And we

permi t t ed the chal l enge t o pr oceed even though the condi t i on at

i ssue mer el y r equi r ed t he def endant t o cooper ate wi t h hypothet i cal

f ut ur e "i nvest i gat i ons and i nt er vi ews" by hi s pr obat i on of f i cer ,

not i ng t hat "Davi s' s t er m of super vi sed r el ease wi l l commence i n

l ess t han t wo mont hs. " I d. at 50- 51.

We concl ude t he chal l enge i n t hi s case, l i ke t he one i n

Davi s, i s r i pe. As i n Davi s, t he j udgment i mposi ng t he sent ence i n

t hi s case expr essl y spel l s out t he condi t i on t hat t he def endant

-24-


25/42

chal l enges. 9 Moreover , Medi na was sent enced t o t hi r t y mont hs i n

pr i son i n J ul y of 2013. That means he, t oo, coul d be subj ect t o

t he condi t i on he chal l enges i n t he near t er m, when he i s r el eased

f r om pr i son and t he t r eat ment pr ogr am commences.

Fi nal l y, consi st ent wi t h t he r equi r ement i mposed by

Sebast i an' s " f aci al l y unr easonabl e" st andar d, Medi na does not ar gue

t hat PPG t est i ng i s i mper mi ssi bl e because i t wi l l be used agai nst

hi m i n some unusual l y i nappr opr i at e or i nef f ect i ve way. See 612

F. 3d at 52. And t hus hi s chal l enge does not depend on t he

par t i cul ar way i n whi ch hi s t r eat ment pr ogr ammay choose t o use PPG

t est i ng. Medi na i nst ead cont ends t hat PPG t est i ng i s so i nher ent l y

i nvasi ve and unr el i abl e t hat t he r equi r ement t hat he submi t t o i t s

use, on t he r ecor d bef or e t he Di st r i ct Cour t , i s unl awf ul however

t he t est i ng may be used. Cf . Davi s, 242 F. 3d at 51- 52 ( uphol di ng

a condi t i onal condi t i on on di r ect appeal si nce i t had "obvi ous

r el evance" t o t he def endant ' s " pr obat i onar y st at us" and woul d not

"necessar i l y" r ai se t he pr obl ems t hat t he def endant was concer ned

about ) ; Sebast i an, 612 F. 3d at 52 ( emphasi zi ng t hat t he def endant

9 Because t he condi t i onal condi t i on chal l enged i n t hi s case,as i n Davi s, i s expl i ci t l y spel l ed out i n and al l owed by t heDi st r i ct Cour t ' s j udgment , we need not addr ess her e t he di st i nct

r i peness i ssues t hat coul d ar i se i f a def endant sought t o chal l enget he possi bi l i t y of PPG t est i ng i n connect i on wi t h a speci alcondi t i on t hat r equi r ed onl y t hat t he def endant compl y wi t h a sexof f ender t r eat ment pr ogr am' s r ul es wi t hout di scussi ng PPG t est i ngi n par t i cul ar . Cf . Weber , 451 F. 3d at 561 n. 12 ( di st i ngui shi ng acase i nvol vi ng a speci al condi t i on r equi r i ng onl y compl i ance wi t ha pr ogr am' s r ul es and not ment i oni ng PPG t est i ng speci f i cal l y) .

-25-


26/42

had a l i mi t ed basi s on whi ch t o chal l enge a cont i ngent condi t i on on

di r ect r evi ew, as "what [ pornogr aphy] ban, i f any, may be i mposed

i s uncer t ai n") . And, i ndeed, Sebast i an appl i ed t he "f aci al l y

unr easonabl e" st andar d t o adj udi cat e on di r ect r evi ew such a f aci al

chal l enge t o a cont i ngent condi t i on of super vi sed r el ease, even

t hough t hat condi t i on woul d not t ake ef f ect f or anot her decade.

See 617 F. 3d at 52 ( f i ndi ng t he condi t i on adequat el y j ust i f i ed) . 10

2.

That l eaves onl y t he gover nment ' s ar gument t hat

Sebast i an' s "f aci al l y unr easonabl e" st andar d r equi r es t hat we

r ej ect Medi na' s f aci al chal l enge as mer i t l ess due t o t he

"wi despread" use of PPG t est i ng i n sex of f ender t r eat ment pr ogr ams

and t he f act t hat Medi na wi l l be f or ced t o submi t t o such t est i ng,

i f at al l , onl y i n connect i on wi t h such a pr ogr am. But we do not

f i nd t hi s ar gument f or r ej ect i ng Medi na' s chal l enge per suasi ve

ei t her .

10 Of cour se, as Sebast i an shows, t he r equi r ement t hat t hedef endant chal l enge t he condi t i on i t sel f and not t he nat ur e of i t sf ut ur e i mpl ement at i on may mean t hat a def endant ' s " f aci al l yunr easonabl e" chal l enge t o a cont i ngent condi t i on wi l l f ai l . SeeSebast i an, 612 F. 3d at 52. And when t hat occur s, " [ i ] t r emai nsopen t o [ t he def endant ] t o chal l enge speci f i c appl i cat i ons of " t hecont i ngent condi t i on "when act ual l y i mposed i n t he f ut ur e. " I d.( ci t i ng Yor k, 357 F. 3d at 23) ; see al so 18 U. S. C. 3583( e) ( 2)

( al l owi ng a di st r i ct cour t t o "modi f y, r educe, or enl ar ge t hecondi t i ons of super vi sed r el ease, at any t i me pr i or t o t heexpi r at i on or t er mi nat i on of t he t er mof super vi sed r el ease") . Butt he avai l abi l i t y of t hat di st i nct f or mof chal l enge t o a condi t i onof super vi sed r el ease pr ovi des no basi s f or denyi ng Medi na ther i ght t o chal l enge t hi s si gni f i cant par t of hi s sent ence on di r ectappeal . See Weber , 451 F. 3d at 569- 70.

-26-


27/42

Sebast i an' s appl i cat i on of t he "f aci al l y unr easonabl e"

st andar d di d t ake account of t he f act t hat t he chal l enged condi t i on

mi ght f aci l i t at e a sex of f ender t r eat ment pr ogr am. See 612 F. 3d at

52. And Sebast i an f ur t her t ook account of t he i mpor t ance of

al l owi ng t he di st r i ct cour t t o mandat e compl i ance wi t h such a

t r eat ment pr ogr ami n advance. I d. Appl yi ng t hose consi der at i ons,

Sebast i an concl uded ( on r evi ew f or pl ai n er r or ) t hat a l i mi t ed

j ust i f i cat i on r oot ed i n t he val ue of ensur i ng compl i ance wi t h

t r eat ment - pr ogr am r ul es suf f i ced t o uphol d t he condi t i onal l y

i mposed por nography ban t her e at i ssue, even t hough t her e was a

f act ual di sput e about t he ef f i cacy of t he use of such bans i n

gener al . See i d.

But Sebast i an di d not hol d t hat a mi ni mal j ust i f i cat i on

r el at i ng t o compl i ance wi t h t r eat ment - pr ogr am r ul es woul d suf f i ce

t o war d of f a chal l enge t o the f aci al r easonabl eness of ever y

condi t i on connect ed wi t h a t r eat ment pr ogr amt hat a di st r i ct cour t

mi ght choose t o i mpose, no mat t er i t s natur e. See i d. And Medi na

cont ends t hat PPG t est i ng r ai ses di st i nct i ssues because i t i s so

i nvasi ve and of such quest i onabl e r el i abi l i t y. Ther e i s no

quest i on that , i n combi nat i on, t hese concer ns do make hi s chal l enge

t o PPG t est i ng di st i ngui shabl e f r omt he chal l enge t o t he condi t i on

at i ssue i n Sebast i an i t sel f . For t hat r eason, we do not bel i eve

Sebast i an compel s us t o rej ect Medi na' s chal l enge, even i f , as t he

gover nment asser t s, PPG t est i ng i s wi del y used i n sex of f ender

-27-


28/42

t r eatment pr ogr ams. I nst ead, Medi na' s chal l enge must be conf r ont ed

on i t s own t er ms and i n l i ght of t he par t i cul ar ar gument s t he

government makes about t he r easonabl eness of t hi s condi t i on on t he

r ecor d i n t hi s case.

Li kewi se, t he case on whi ch Sebast i an r el i ed i n set t i ng

f or t h t he "f aci al l y unr easonabl e" st andar d - - Uni t ed St at es v.

Yor k, 357 F. 3d 14, 23 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) - - does not di ct at e r ej ect i on

of Medi na' s f aci al chal l enge t o t hi s condi t i on. I n r ej ecti ng a

chal l enge to a r equi r ement t hat t he def endant i n t hat case submi t

t o pol ygr aph t est i ng as par t of hi s super vi sed r el ease, Yor k

f ocused l ar gel y on consi der at i ons uni que t o pol ygr aph t est i ng and

on ar gument s t he gover nment advanced about t he condi t i on' s

r easonabl eness t hat ar e not r el evant her e. See i d. For exampl e,

i n r ej ect i ng t he def endant ' s chal l enge t o pol ygr aphy as "i nher ent l y

unr el i abl e, " Yor k emphasi zed t hat even an unr el i abl e l i e- det ect or

t est coul d det er t he def endant f r om l yi ng and t hus f ur t her t he

goal s of super vi sed r el ease. I d.

I n t hi s case, however , t he gover nment ( f or good r eason)

makes no si mi l ar cont ent i on t hat PPG t est i ng woul d be usef ul i n

t r eat i ng Medi na even assumi ng t hat Medi na was r i ght t hat such

t est i ng i s bot h unusual l y i nvasi ve and unr el i abl e. Thus, t he

par t i cul ar r at i onal e t hat Yor k rel i ed on t o uphol d t he pol ygr aph

condi t i on' s f aci al r easonabl eness i n t hat case i s not appl i cabl e

her e.

-28-


29/42

Fi nal l y, we emphasi ze, t hat i n Sebast i an, t he def endant

had made no obj ect i on t o t he condi t i on bel ow. 612 F. 3d at 50. We

t hus appl i ed t he st r i ct pl ai n er r or st andar d t o t he def endant ' s

cont ent i on t hat t he por nogr aphy- ban condi t i on was f aci al l y

unr easonabl e. I d. And we r ef er enced t hat st r i ct st andar d i n

expl ai ni ng why we saw no need t o r esol ve t he "empi r i cal quest i on"

of whet her pornogr aphy bans assi st i n sex of f ender t r eatment . See

i d. at 52. Si mi l ar l y, i n Yor k, our r evi ew of t he r easonabl eness of

t he pol ygr aph condi t i on al so t ook pl ace wi t hout t her e havi ng been

"[ a] t i mel y obj ect i on and t he cr eat i on of a recor d [ t hat ] woul d

have per mi t t ed bot h t he di st r i ct cour t and t hi s cour t t o revi ew

Yor k' s cl ai ms wi t h t he benef i t of t hat i nf or mat i on. " 357 F. 3d at

19.

By cont r ast , her e t he def endant di d make a t i mel y

obj ect i on t hat t he cont i ngent super vi sed r el ease condi t i on was

i nher ent l y humi l i at i ng and unr el i abl e and t hus i mper mi ssi bl e - - an

obj ect i on that cl ear l y asser t ed t he condi t i on was unr easonabl e on

i t s f ace. Our r evi ew, t her ef or e, i s not ci r cumscri bed i n t hi s

case, as i t was i n Sebast i an and Yor k, by t he def endant ' s l at eness

i n r ai si ng t he chal l enge.

Thus, f or al l of t hese r easons, we do not bel i eve our

pr i or pr ecedent , whet her Sebast i an or Yor k, f or ecl oses Medi na' s

chal l enge t o t he PPG aspect of t he super vi sed r el ease por t i on of

-29-


30/42

hi s sent ence. And so we t ur n t o t he mer i t s of hi s chal l enge t o t he

PPG t est i ng condi t i on.

B.

Our Ci r cui t has not yet deci ded a case i nvol vi ng a

chal l enge t o t he i mposi t i on of PPG t est i ng as par t of a condi t i on

of super vi sed r el ease - - whet her cont i ngent on a t r eatment

pr ogr am' s pr escr i pt i on or ot her wi se. And t hus we have not

consi der ed bef ore whet her such a condi t i on may be successf ul l y

chal l enged under Sebast i an' s "f aci al l y unr easonabl e" st andar d. But

other ci r cui t s have addr essed whet her and when thi s t ype of

condi t i on may be i mposed, and t hus t hei r anal ysi s i nf orms our

assessment of Medi na' s f aci al chal l enge t o the condi t i on.

The Four t h Ci r cui t has hel d t hat t he "pl et hysmograph t est

i s ' usef ul f or t r eat ment of sex of f ender s, ' " and t hus t hat a

di str i ct cour t "c l ear l y act [ s] wi t hi n i t s di scr et i on i n i mposi ng"

i t as a condi t i on, even, i t seems, wi t hout of f er i ng much of an

expl anat i on f or doi ng so. Uni t ed St at es v. Dot son, 324 F. 3d 256,

261 ( 4t h Ci r . 2003) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v. Power s, 59 F. 3d 1460,

1471 ( 4t h Ci r . 1995) ) . But whi l e t he gover nment ur ges us t o f ol l ow

Dot son her e, and t hus t o r ej ect Medi na' s f aci al chal l enge t o t he

condi t i on, t wo ot her ci r cui t s have t aken a ver y di f f er ent appr oach.

And t hei r anal yses suppor t t he concl usi on t hat , at l east on t hi s

r ecor d, t he condi t i on at i ssue i n t hi s case i s f aci al l y

unr easonabl e.

-30-


31/42

The Second Ci r cui t , i n Uni t ed St at es v. McLaur i n,

i dent i f i ed si gni f i cant const i t ut i onal concer ns wi t h PPG t est i ng and

t hus requi r ed t hat a di st r i ct cour t sat i sf y st r i ct scrut i ny bef or e

i mposi ng a PPG t est i ng obl i gat i on as a super vi sed r el ease

condi t i on. 11 731 F. 3d 258, 261 ( 2d Ci r . 2013) . The Second Ci r cui t

di d so, mor eover , even t hough t he condi t i on di d not di r ect l y

mandat e PPG t est i ng and i nst ead made submi ss i on t o such t est i ng

cont i ngent on t he t r eat ment pr ogr am' s deci si on t o r equi r e i t . I d.

Seei ng a "cl ear di st i nct i on bet ween peni s measur ement and

ot her condi t i ons of super vi sed r el ease, " i d. at 264, t he cour t hel d

t hat PPG t est i ng i s so i nvasi ve t hat "i t coul d be j ust i f i ed onl y i f

i t i s nar r owl y t ai l or ed t o ser ve a compel l i ng gover nment i nt er est , "

i d. at 261. McLaur i n expl ai ned t hat " t he pr ocedur e i nf l i ct s t he

obvi ousl y subst ant i al humi l i at i on of havi ng t he si ze and r i gi di t y

of one' s peni s measur ed and moni t or ed by the government under t he

t hr eat of r ei ncar cer at i on f or a f ai l ur e t o f ul l y cooper at e. " I d.

at 263. Thus, bef ore r equi r i ng compl i ance wi t h PPG t est i ng

pr escr i bed by a t r eat ment pr ogr am, McLaur i n hel d t hat a di st r i ct

cour t must , "at a mi ni mum, make f i ndi ngs, suf f i ci ent l y i nf or mat i ve

11 Because we concl ude t hat t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s j ust i f i cat i on

f or t he condi t i on i n t hi s case was i nadequat e as a st at ut or ymat t er , we need not addr ess t he exi st ence of a separat e,subst ant i ve due pr ocess l i mi t at i on on super vi sed r el easecondi t i ons. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 436 F. 3d 307, 310 ( 1stCi r . 2006) ( " I t i s beyond hope of cont r adi ct i on t hat t hose who ar econvi ct ed of cr i mes agai nst soci et y l ose a measur e ofconst i t ut i onal pr ot ect i on. ") .

-31-


32/42

and def endant - speci f i c f or appel l at e r evi ew, t hat t he t est i s

t her apeut i cal l y benef i ci al , t hat i t s benef i t s substant i al l y

out wei gh any cost s t o t he subj ect ' s di gni t y, and t hat no l ess

i nt r usi ve al t er nat i ve exi sts. " I d.

The Ni nt h Ci r cui t r eached a si mi l ar r esul t i n Uni t ed

St at es v. Weber , al t hough i t r el i ed excl usi vel y on t he

j ust i f i cat or y r equi r ement s i mposed by t he st at ut e gover ni ng t he

i mposi t i on of speci al condi t i ons of super vi sed r el ease. 451 F. 3d

at 552- 53 ( ci t i ng 18 U. S. C. 3583( d) ) . The cour t emphasi zed t hat

" [ p] l et hysmogr aph t est i ng not onl y encompasses a physi cal i nt r usi on

but a ment al one, i nvol vi ng not onl y a measur e of t he subj ect ' s

geni t al i a but a pr obi ng of hi s i nner most t hought s as wel l . " I d. at

562- 63. Because such t est i ng i s "except i onal l y i nt r usi ve i n nat ur e

and dur at i on, " t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t hel d t hat " t he pr ocedur e

i mpl i cat es a par t i cul ar l y s i gni f i cant l i ber t y i nt er est . " I d. at

563. The Ni nt h Ci r cui t f ur t her expl ai ned t hat t her e wer e ser i ous

concer ns about bot h t he t est i ng' s r el i abi l i t y and ef f i cacy,

i ncl udi ng i t s "suscept i bi l i t y t o mani pul at i on vi a f aki ng, " i d. at

564, and t he "l ack[ of ] ' uni f or m admi ni st r at i on and scor i ng

gui del i nes, ' " i d. at 565 ( quot i ng Wal t er T. Si mon & Pet er G. W.

Schout en, The Pl et hysmogr aph Reconsi der ed: Comment s on Bar ker and

Howel l , 21 Bul l . Am. Acad. Psychi at r y & L. 505, 510 ( 1993) ) .

On t he basi s of t hose concer ns, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t

const r ued t he st at ut e gover ni ng t he i mposi t i on of speci al

-32-


33/42

condi t i ons of super vi sed rel ease t o r equi r e "hei ght ened pr ocedur al

pr ot ect i ons" bef or e a di st r i ct cour t coul d mandat e submi ssi on t o

PPG t est i ng i f a sex of f ender t r eat ment pr ogr am chose t o use the

pr ocedur e. I d. at 570. These pr ot ect i ons i ncl uded t he r equi r ement

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t under t ake a "consi der at i on of evi dence t hat

pl et hysmogr aph t est i ng i s r easonabl y necessary f or t he par t i cul ar

def endant based upon hi s speci f i c psychol ogi cal pr of i l e. " I d. at

569- 70.

Weber f ur t her expl ai ned that , under t he gover ni ng

st at ut e, a di st r i ct cour t needed t o gi ve consi der at i on t o avai l abl e

al t er nat i ves t o PPG t est i ng, such as sel f - r epor t i ng i nt er vi ews,

pol ygr aph test i ng, and "Abel t est i ng, " whi ch measur es t he amount of

t i me a def endant l ooks at par t i cul ar phot ogr aphs. I d. at 567- 68.

And f i nal l y, Weber expl ai ned t hat , bef or e i mposi ng such a

condi t i on, t he di st r i ct cour t must "suppor t i t s deci si on on t he

r ecor d wi t h r ecor d evi dence t hat t he condi t i on of super vi sed

r el ease sought t o be i mposed i s ' necessary t o accompl i sh one or

mor e of t he f act or s l i st ed i n 3583( d) ( 1) ' and ' i nvol ves no

gr eat er depr i vat i on of l i ber t y t han i s r easonabl y necessar y. ' "12

I d. at 561 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 356 F. 3d 1045, 1057

( 9t h Ci r . 2004) ) .

12 J udge Noonan, who concur r ed, woul d have gone f ur t her " t ohol d t he Or wel l i an pr ocedur e at i ssue t o be al ways a vi ol at i on oft he per sonal di gni t y of whi ch pr i soner s ar e not depr i ved. " Weber ,451 F. 3d at 570 ( Noonan, J . , concur r i ng) .

-33-


34/42

The concer ns r ai sed by t he Second and Ni nt h Ci r cui t s

accor d wi t h t hose we have pr evi ousl y r ai sed about PPG t est i ng,

al t hough we r ai sed t hemout si de t he cont ext of a super vi sed r el ease

condi t i on mandat i ng sex of f ender t r eat ment . I n t wo cases i n t he

1990s, we addr essed t he use of PPG t est i ng as a pr erequi si t e f or

cont i nued publ i c empl oyment f or empl oyees who came under suspi ci on

f or , r espect i vel y, sexual l y abusi ng chi l dr en and possessi ng chi l d

pornogr aphy. See Ber t hi aume v. Caron, 142 F. 3d 12 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ;

Har r i ngt on v. Al my, 977 F. 2d 37 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . And, i n doi ng so,

we acknowl edged i n each case the unusual l y i nvasi ve nat ur e of such

t est i ng and t he debat e over i t s rel i abi l i t y. Ber t hi aume, 142 F. 3d

at 17; Har r i ngt on, 977 F. 2d at 44.

I n Har r i ngt on, we descr i bed t he pr act i ce as i nvol vi ng

"bodi l y mani pul at i on of t he most i nt i mat e sor t , " and expl ai ned t hat

"[ o] ne does not have t o cul t i vat e par t i cul ar l y del i cat e

sensi bi l i t i es t o bel i eve degr adi ng t he pr ocess of havi ng a st r ai n

gauge st r apped t o an i ndi vi dual ' s geni t al s whi l e sexual l y expl i ci t

pi ct ur es ar e di spl ayed i n an ef f or t t o det er mi ne hi s sexual ar ousal

pat t er ns. " Har r i ngt on, 977 F. 2d at 44. We al so r emarked on t he

l ack of evi dence r egar di ng bot h "t he pr ocedur e' s r el i abi l i t y" and

t he avai l abi l i t y of any "l ess i nt r usi ve means of obt ai ni ng t he

r el evant i nf or mat i on. " I d. We t hus hel d t hat i t was a j ur y

quest i on whet her t he t est i ng r equi r ement had vi ol at ed a publ i c

empl oyee' s const i t ut i onal r i ght s such t hat t he empl oyee was

-34-


35/42

ent i t l ed t o damages. I d. And t he Second and Ni nt h Ci r cui t s r el i ed

on Har r i ngt on i n vacat i ng PPG- t est i ng super vi sed r el ease

condi t i ons. See McLaur i n, 731 F. 3d at 261; Weber , 451 F. 3d at 563.

I n Ber t hi aume, we di d back away somewhat f r om t he

concl usi on i n Har r i ngt on about t he pl ai nt i f f ' s r i ght t o damages

based on PPG t est i ng. See Ber t hi aume, 142 F. 3d at 15- 17. We

concl uded t hat PPG t est i ng' s accept ance by some i n t he t r eat ment

communi t y at t hat t i me ent i t l ed a publ i c of f i ci al , who was a

l ayper son, t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y f r om bei ng l i abl e f or damages.

I d. at 18. But we expl ai ned t hat i t was "hi ghl y per t i nent " t hat

t he pl ai nt i f f t her e had, t o some ext ent , consent ed t o t he t est .

I d. And, we wer e car ef ul t o say t hat " [ f ] or ci bl e admi ni st r at i on"

of PPG t est i ng "woul d be an ent i r el y di f f er ent case. " I d.

C.

Her e, we ar e conf r ont ed wi t h t he "[ f ] or ci bl e

admi ni st r at i on" of PPG t est i ng, i d. , as we ar e r evi ewi ng a

chal l enge i nvol vi ng a def endant ' s f or ced submi ssi on t o such t est i ng

i n connect i on wi t h a cr i mi nal sent ence. And now f aced wi t h such a

chal l enge t o PPG t est i ng, we concl ude t hat t he Second and Ni nt h

Ci r cui t s wer e r i ght t o r equi r e a di st r i ct cour t t o pr ovi de a

subst ant i al j ust i f i cat i on bef or e maki ng submi ssi on t o PPG t est i ng

par t of a condi t i on of super vi sed r el ease. And we f ur t her concl ude

t hat , absent such a j ust i f i cat i on, t he condi t i on i s f aci al l y

unr easonabl e.

-35-


36/42

I n r eachi ng t hi s concl usi on, we, l i ke t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t ,

ar e not pr epar ed t o "say cat egor i cal l y t hat , despi t e t he quest i ons

of r el i abi l i t y, [ PPG] t est i ng can never r easonabl y" be i mposed as

a speci al condi t i on of super vi sed r el ease. Weber , 451 F. 3d at 556.

But , l i ke t he Second Ci r cui t , we "see a cl ear di st i nct i on" bet ween

t he i nvasi veness of PPG t est i ng "and ot her condi t i ons of super vi sed

r el ease. " McLaur i n, 731 F. 3d at 264. And t he di sput es r egar di ng

t he pr ocedur e' s r el i abi l i t y r ei nf or ce t he concer n r ai sed by i t s

di st i nct i ve i nvasi veness and unusual physi cal i nt r usi on i nt o an

i ndi vi dual ' s most i nt i mat e r eal m. See Weber , 451 F. 3d 564- 65.

We t hus concl ude t hat t he condi t i on i n t hi s case cannot

be deemed r easonabl e merel y because of t he general i nt erest i n

ensur i ng i n advance t hat a t r eatment pr ogr am' s r ul es wi l l be

f ol l owed. Nor can t he condi t i on be deemed r easonabl e si mpl y

because t he condi t i on concerns a pr ocedur e t hat arguabl y may

f aci l i t at e t he t r eat ment pr ogr am.

I nst ead, i n or der f or t he condi t i on t o be deemed f aci al l y

r easonabl e, di st r i ct cour t s must pr ovi de a mor e subst ant i al

j ust i f i cat i on, at l east once a def endant obj ect s. See 18 U. S. C.

3583( d) ( 2) ( mandat i ng t hat speci al condi t i ons "i nvol ve[ ] no

gr eat er depr i vat i on of l i ber t y t han i s r easonabl y necessar y") ; see

al so Uni t ed St at es v. Mal enya, 736 F. 3d 554, 560 ( D. C. Ci r . 2013)

( expl ai ni ng t hat 3583( d) ( 2) r equi r es "bal anci ng" t he sent enci ng

"goal s agai nst t he def endant ' s l i ber t y, " and vacat i ng a set of

-36-


37/42

chal l enged condi t i ons) ; i d. at 566 ( Kavanaugh, J . , di ssent i ng)

( agr eei ng wi t h t he maj or i t y t hat PPG t est i ng i n par t i cul ar

"i mpl i cat es si gni f i cant l i ber t y i nt er est s and woul d r equi r e, at a

mi ni mum, a mor e subst ant i al j ust i f i cat i on t han ot her t ypi cal

condi t i ons of super vi sed r el ease, " but di sagr eei ng wi t h t he vacat ur

of t he ot her chal l enged condi t i ons) . Speci f i cal l y, i n such

ci r cumst ance, a di st r i ct cour t may not i mpose t he condi t i on unl ess

i t can j ust i f y i t t hr ough "a t hor ough, on- t he- r ecor d i nqui r y i nt o

whet her t he degr ee of i nt r usi on caused by such t est i ng i s

r easonabl y necessary ' t o accompl i sh one or more of t he f actors

l i st ed i n 3583( d) ( 1) ' and ' i nvol ves no gr eat er depr i vat i on of

l i ber t y t han i s r easonabl y necessar y, ' gi ven t he avai l abl e

al t er nat i ves. " Weber , 451 F. 3d at 568- 69 ( quot i ng Wi l l i ams, 356

F. 3d at 1057) .

I n conduct i ng t hat i nqui r y, di st r i ct cour t s must expl ai n

why the i mposi t i on of t he PPG t est i ng condi t i on woul d be r easonabl e

gi ven t he i ndi vi dual char act er i st i cs of t he par t i cul ar def endant

who woul d be subj ect t o t he condi t i on. See Weber , 451 F. 3d at 569-

70. And di st r i ct cour t s must base t hat j ust i f i cat i on on "adequat e

evi dent i ary suppor t i n t he r ecor d. " Roy, 438 F. 3d at 144. At

l east when conf r ont ed wi t h a def endant ' s obj ect i on, we wi l l not

i nf er a di str i ct cour t ' s unexpr essed j ust i f i cat i on f or t hi s

par t i cul ar l y f r aught condi t i on f r om t he r ecor d, as we have done

wi t h r egar d t o ot her condi t i ons. See Per azza- Mer cado, 553 F. 3d at

-37-


38/42

75 ( expl ai ni ng t hat "' t her e ar e l i mi t s' t o our wi l l i ngness t o

suppl y our own j ust i f i cat i on f or a par t i cul ar sent ence" ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Gi l l man, 478 F. 3d 440, 446 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ) ) .

D.

I n t hi s case, t he Di st r i ct Cour t made no ef f or t t o

r espond ser i ousl y and on t he r ecor d t o Medi na' s obj ect i ons t o t he

PPG t est i ng condi t i on. The Di st r i ct Cour t f ai l ed t o do so even

t hough Medi na appr i sed f i r st t he pr obat i on of f i ce and t hen t he

Di st r i ct Cour t t hat he had ser i ous concer ns about t he r el i abi l i t y

of PPG t est i ng and about i t s degr adi ng nat ur e. I nst ead, when

Medi na' s counsel obj ect ed t o the requi r ement t o compl y wi t h a

t r eat ment pr ogr amdeci si on t o use PPG t est i ng, t he Di st r i ct Cour t ' s

r esponse was cur t . "The PPGs and al l t hat . Yes, I am goi ng t o

al l ow t hat . That ' s f or sur e. " Medi na' s counsel t hen r esponded:

[ Medi na' s Counsel ] : Okay. And j ust f or

pur poses of t he[ ] r ecor d, we obj ect t o t hei mposi t i on of t hat t r eat ment , i n par t i cul ar t ot he PPG. We under st and i t ' s i nvasi ve, i t ' shumi l i at i ng, i t hasn' t even passed t he Dauber tst andard.

THE COURT: What he has done i n hi s l i f e i shumi l i at i ng.

[ Medi na' s Counsel ] : Excuse me?

THE COURT: What he has done i n hi s l i f e i s

humi l i at i ng t o vi ct i ms. Now we' r e t al ki ngabout humi l i at i ng hi m.

The Di st r i ct Cour t di d not t hen el aborat e on t hi s unusual l y

di smi ssi ve r esponse.

-38-


39/42

The Di st r i ct Cour t t hus sai d not hi ng speci f i c about t he

r equi r ed st at ut or y consi der at i ons of det er r ence, pr ot ect i on of t he

publ i c, and r ehabi l i t at i on i n i mposi ng t he PPG condi t i on. But see

18 U. S. C. 3553( a) , 3583( d) . And, si mi l ar l y, t he Di st r i ct Cour t

di d not addr ess whet her t he condi t i on " i nvol ve[ d] no gr eat er

depr i vat i on of l i ber t y t han [ was] r easonabl y necessary t o" pr omot e

t he st at ut or y f act or s of det er r ence, pr ot ect i on of t he publ i c, and

r ehabi l i t at i on, as r el at ed t o t he char act er i st i cs of t he def endant

and hi s cri mi nal hi st or y. I d. 3583( d) . Nor di d t he Di st r i ct

Cour t engage i n an evi dent i ar y i nqui r y i nt o any of t he r el evant

consi der at i ons or poi nt t o anyt hi ng i n t he r ecor d t hat coul d have

suppl i ed an evi dent i ar y basi s f or i t s i mposi t i on of t he condi t i on.

See Roy, 438 F. 3d at 144 ( r equi r i ng "adequate evi dent i ary suppor t

i n t he r ecor d" ) . We t hus vacat e t he i mposi t i on of t he PPG t est i ng

por t i on of t hi s speci al condi t i on of super vi sed r el ease, as i n t he

absence of an on- t he- r ecor d expl anat i on f or i t , t he condi t i on was

unr easonabl e on i t s f ace.

On r emand, we emphasi ze, any deci si on t o r ei mpose t he PPG

t est i ng condi t i on woul d r equi r e f ur t her f act ual devel opment t o show

i t s r easonabl eness. The r ecor d pr esent l y cont ai ns no evi dence t hat

woul d suppor t t he sweepi ng j udgment t hat t he PPG t est i ng condi t i on

was j ust i f i ed. For whi l e t he pr e- sent ence r epor t does r ef er t o PPG

t est i ng, t he r epor t says not hi ng about t he r el i abi l i t y or ef f i cacy

of PPG t est i ng i n par t i cul ar . Nor does t he r epor t of f er any

-39-


40/42


41/42

wi t h any expl anat i on of what "wi del y used" means i n pr act i ce or i n

cont ext . Thus, " [ t ] he Gover nment i s unabl e t o say, except wi t h

vague gener al i t i es, how t he use of t he devi ce amount s t o

' t r eat ment , ' and i s unabl e t o poi nt t o any expect ed, much l ess

t angi bl e, benef i t s t o [ Medi na or t he publ i c] f r om t he t est i ng. "

I d. at 262. I n t hat r egar d, t he gover nment of f er s no mor e i n

def ense of t he condi t i on on appeal t han was of f ered on behal f of

t he condi t i on at sent enci ng. But t he "showi ng" provi ded bel ow, as

we have expl ai ned, was i nsuf f i ci ent t o over come Medi na' s cont ent i on

t hat t he condi t i on i s unr easonabl e on i t s f ace, and t hus wi t hout

r egar d t o t he par t i cul ar way i n whi ch i t may be appl i ed t o hi m.

VI.

A di str i ct cour t has si gni f i cant di scr et i on i n set t i ng a

t er mof super vi sed r el ease. A di st r i ct cour t al so has si gni f i cant

di scret i on t o craf t speci al super vi sed r el ease condi t i ons. But a

di str i ct cour t ' s exer ci se of i t s di scr et i on must st i l l accor d wi t h

t he st atut ory f r amework gover ni ng super vi sed r el ease.

Her e, we concl ude that t he Di st r i ct Cour t i mpr oper l y

det er mi ned t he r el evant gui del i nes r ange i n set t i ng t he t er m of

supervi sed r el ease; i mposed a bl anket pornogr aphy ban wi t hout

expl anat i on and cont r ar y to di r ect l y appl i cabl e pr ecedent ; and t hen

i mposed an ext r aor di nar i l y i nvasi ve super vi sed r el ease condi t i on

wi t hout consi der i ng t he condi t i on' s ef f i cacy i n achi evi ng t he

st at ut or y pur poses of such condi t i ons, gi ven bot h t he par t i cul ar

-41-


42/42

def endant whose l i ber t y was at st ake and t he evi dent concerns he

di r ect l y r ai sed about t he appr opr i at eness and r el i abi l i t y of t he

condi t i on t o whi ch he was bei ng r equi r ed t o submi t . Al t hough we

have been def er ent i al i n r evi ewi ng di st r i ct cour t s craf t i ng of

speci al condi t i ons of super vi sed rel ease, Congr ess and our

pr ecedent r equi r ed mor e of t he di st r i ct cour t i n t hi s i nst ance. We

t hus vacat e the super vi sed r el ease sent ence t er m, as wel l as t he

condi t i ons chal l enged on t hi s appeal , and r emand the case f or r e-

sent enci ng.

United States v. Medina, 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Medina, 1st Cir. (2015)