United States v. Albertson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9106
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Albertson pled guilty to receiving child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(B).
- District Court imposed 60 months' imprisonment (mandatory minimum) and 20 years' supervised release with eight special conditions.
- Special conditions included a broad internet ban, mandatory computer monitoring, and a restriction on associating with minors.
- Prior to sentencing, the government urged up to 25 years' supervised release; Albertson sought less time based on district comparisons.
- Evidence revealed over 700 child-porn images on Albertson's computer, including prepubescent material, and past molestation of his former step-daughter.
- On appeal, Albertson argues the internet ban is overbroad; the government argues for the 20-year term and preservation of most conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the internet ban overbroad as a supervised release condition? | Albertson contends internet ban too broad. | Albertson argues blanket ban is justified by risk and context. | Internet ban remanded for tailoring; monitoring remains acceptable with a narrowed restriction. |
| Is the monitoring requirement permissible with a tailored internet restriction? | Albertson says monitoring should be tied to a necessary internet restriction. | Albertson's monitoring aid is acceptable if internet ban is narrowed. | Monitoring upheld as enforceable with a more narrowly tailored internet restriction. |
| Is the associational restriction with minors supported by the record? | Albertson challenges the necessity of restricting associations with minors. | Record shows past indecent assault of a minor; restriction warranted. | Associational restriction affirmed; supported by record and analogous to prior cases. |
| Was Albertson's 20-year supervised-release term reasonable given § 3553(a)? | Albertson argues term is excessive. | Court may impose longer term following a shorter prison sentence to achieve deterrence and rehabilitation. | 20-year term affirmed; discussion focuses on tailoring internet condition rather than term length. |
| Was the issue of the special conditions properly preserved or waived on appeal? | Argues that the issues were not waived due to extraordinary circumstances. | Waiver should apply; Miller precedent supports reviewing only if raised in opening brief. | Extraordinary-circumstances exception applied; merits reviewed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller, 594 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2010) (internet ban for child-porn offender deemed overbroad; tailorable approach adopted)
- Crandon, 173 F.3d 122 (3d Cir. 1999) (internet restrictions for child porn offenders; emphasis on tailoring and direct use of internet)
- Voelker, 489 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2007) (lifetime internet ban deemed too broad; supports tailoring)
- Freeman, 316 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 2003) (internet restrictions may focus on pornography sites with unannounced inspections)
- Maurer, 639 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (demonstrated willingness to use internet to engage with minors supports restrictions)
- Thielemann, 575 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2009) (internet ban upheld when defendant solicited abuse via online contact)
- Loy, 237 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2001) (necessity of explaining safety benefits of internet restriction; direct relation to goals)