United States v. Apodaca
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7435
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Apodaca pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B),(b)(2).
- Police uncovered a sizable library of child pornography on Apodaca’s computer; a later search of his apartment yielded more materials.
- At sentencing, the district court downwardly departed from the Guidelines, imposing 24 months imprisonment and lifetime supervised release.
- The district court imposed fifteen supervised release conditions, including a fifteenth provision prohibiting contact with anyone under 18 except with parental/guardian notice or in certain contexts.
- Apodaca appeals challenging the lifetime supervised release as unreasonable and the fifteenth condition as unconstitutional; the court affirms after two-step review.
- The sentencing judge indicated willingness to consider relief from supervised release in the future.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of lifetime supervised release | Apodaca argues lifetime supervision is unreasonable. | Apodaca contends the term is disproportionate and not supported by facts. | Lifetime release not substantively unreasonable; within-range given guidelines and case law. |
| Constitutionality of fifteenth condition restricting contact with under 18 | Gives rise to rights to procreate and raise a family. | Condition allows contact with minors with parental notification/exceptions. | Condition Does not violate rights; exceptions render it permissible. |
| Procedural adequacy of explanation for the sentence | The judge failed to adequately explain the lifetime term. | Record shows substantial discussion and consideration of § 3553(a) factors. | No reversible procedural error; explanation adequate given record. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2008) (guidelines advisory and reasonableness framework for supervised release)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (requirement to explain when a departure is argued; openness of explanation)
- Carty v. United States, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (two-step review for reasonableness and abuse of discretion standard)
- United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for supervised release conditions)
- Blinkinsop v. United States, 606 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2010) (procedural error factors in sentencing review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review of sentences within/outside Guidelines)
- United States v. Cope, 527 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2008) (possession-only child pornography cases and lifetime supervised release)
- Dorvee v. United States, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (issues with § 5D1.2(b)(2) lifetime supervision for internet offenses)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (court’s discretion to vary from guidelines considering policy decisions)