United States v. Armando Mendoza-Peralta, 691 F. App'x 322

Armando Mendoza-Peralta was convicted for receipt of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and sentenced with supervised release conditions restricting access to certain sexually explicit materials.
This appeal challenges a special condition that forbids possession of “explicit sexually stimulating depictions of adult sexual conduct that he would access via the internet” while allowing offline viewing if approved by the probation officer.
Mendoza-Peralta argues the condition was procedurally and substantively improper and that the written judgment conflicts with the district court’s oral resentencing pronouncement.
The Ninth Circuit previously remanded for clarification; at resentencing the district court narrowed the restriction to certain pornographic materials and modeled the condition on language from United States v. Gnirke.
The panel reviewed the district court’s oral condition (controlling over any conflicting written language) and evaluated procedural explanation, factual basis, and substantive reasonableness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural adequacy of explanation for the special condition	Mendoza-Peralta: court failed to provide adequate reasoning and heightened procedures required	Government: court gave sufficient explanation tied to recidivism risk and § 3553 factors	Court: No procedural error; explanation adequate for meaningful review
Reliance on facts supporting restriction	Mendoza-Peralta: condition rests on clearly erroneous factual basis	Government: district court relied on sentencing experience and relevant history	Court: No clear factual error; reliance was reasonable
Substantive validity of restricting access to adult pornography	Mendoza-Peralta: condition overbroad or an abuse of discretion	Government: condition tailored to pornographic materials to mitigate recidivism risk	Court: No substantive error; condition within district court’s discretion consistent with Gnirke
Conflict between oral sentence and written judgment	Mendoza-Peralta: written judgment conflicts and creates ambiguity	Government: oral sentence controls; any discrepancy should be resolved	Court: Vacated written judgment insofar as it conflicts and remanded to conform judgment to oral sentence

United States v. Napier, 463 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir.) (oral sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)
United States v. Gnirke, 775 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (upholding limited restrictions on access to pornography for supervision purposes)
United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing liberty interests and procedural requirements for special conditions)
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (standard for explanation sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review)
United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court may rely on sentencing experience in assessing conditions)