United States v. Aquino-Florenciani, 894 F.3d 4

In 2015 agents traced shared child pornography to an IP address, obtained a search warrant, and learned Noel Aquino‑Florenciani used a neighbor's internet account to download files.
At Aquino‑Florenciani’s apartment, he consented to device searches and admitted to downloading child pornography for about a year and possessing over fifty videos.
Agents found a video on his phone showing Aquino‑Florenciani sexually abusing a prepubescent boy; he admitted producing the video.
He pleaded guilty to producing and possessing child pornography; the PSR calculated total offense level 38 and Guidelines range 235–293 months (CHC I).
The district court sentenced him to 264 months’ imprisonment and ten years’ supervised release, including a condition prohibiting possession/use of internet‑capable devices without probation approval and requiring electronic monitoring.
Aquino‑Florenciani appealed, arguing (1) the supervised‑release internet restriction violated 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), (2) the court abused its discretion by relying on the child‑pornography Guidelines, and (3) an additional sealed claim. The First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of internet restriction as supervised‑release condition	Government: condition is tailored and within statutory authority to protect the public and monitor risk	Aquino‑Florenciani: condition is effectively a total ban, not reasonably related and overly restrictive under § 3583(d)	Affirmed: not a total ban; defendant may seek modification; restriction justified because defendant used internet in the offense and had history of illegal internet use
Reliance on child‑pornography Guidelines	Government: Guidelines may be used as a reasonable starting point under § 3553(a)	Aquino‑Florenciani: Guidelines are not empirically based and district courts must categorically reject them as per se unreasonable	Affirmed: no per se rule; district courts may accept or vary from Guidelines; here agreement with Guidelines was permissible
Procedural obligation to recognize discretion to vary from Guidelines	—	Aquino‑Florenciani: district court should have explicitly rejected Guidelines as policy‑based error	Held: district courts must recognize discretion to vary, but failure to reject Guidelines categorically is not per se reversible; no plain error here
Sealed factual challenge to PSR findings	—	Aquino‑Florenciani: disputes factual PSR conclusions (raised only on appeal)	Affirmed: claim arguably waived for lack of objection; even under plain‑error review no clear or obvious error shown; sealed materials do not compel reversal

United States v. Hinkel, 837 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2016) (upholding broad internet restrictions where defendant used internet in offense)
United States v. Perazza‑Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (factors supporting internet‑access restrictions on supervised release)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district courts may vary from Guidelines based on policy disagreements)
United States v. Stone, 575 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2009) (district courts must recognize discretion to vary from child‑pornography Guidelines but need not reject them)
United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (critical history and practical effects of child‑pornography Guidelines)
United States v. Ruiz‑Huertas, 792 F.3d 223 (1st Cir. 2015) (standard of review for substantive reasonableness of sentence)
United States v. Mejía‑Encarnación, 887 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2018) (plain‑error standard applies where defendant failed to object to supervised‑release condition)
United States v. Chandler, 534 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2008) (appellate courts generally do not consider materials outside the record)
United States v. Rondón‑García, 886 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2018) (waiver for failure to object to PSR conclusions)