United States v. Bilyou, 20-3675

Ricky J. Bilyou pleaded guilty in 2020 to Failure to Register as a Sex Offender (18 U.S.C. § 2250(a)), based on a 2016 Indiana conviction for child exploitation.
His criminal history includes a 2015 conviction for sexual exploitation of a 15‑year‑old (nude images and pressured sexual videos) and a 2014 rape charge reduced to child endangerment and dissemination of indecent material.
The district court sentenced Bilyou to 30 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release, imposing Special Condition 9: a prohibition on viewing/possessing/owning material depicting “sexually explicit conduct” (18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)) until a treatment provider clears him.
Bilyou appealed, arguing Special Condition 9 was overbroad, unsupported by factual findings, and insufficiently related to § 3553(a) factors and recidivism risk.
The district court defended the condition based on Bilyou’s sexual‑offense history and characterized the restriction as “fluid,” limited by reevaluation by a treatment provider and, at most, lasting the five‑year supervised‑release term.
The appellate court also identified a discrepancy: the orally pronounced Guidelines calculation (offense level 10; range 24–30 months) conflicted with the written Statement of Reasons (offense level 12; range 30–37 months), prompting remand to correct the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Special Condition 9 (ban on adult sexually explicit material pending treatment clearance)	United States: Condition is reasonably related to rehabilitation and public safety given Bilyou’s history of sexual offenses involving minors.	Bilyou: Condition infringes First Amendment interests, is overbroad, not sufficiently tied to recidivism or § 3553(a) factors, and lacks factual findings connecting adult pornography to his offense.	Affirmed. Court found the condition supported by Bilyou’s sexual‑offense history and sufficiently narrow/limited (tied to evaluation and possible reevaluation).
Conflict between oral sentence and written Statement of Reasons	Parties jointly sought correction to match oral pronouncement.	Bilyou sought clarification/remedy for the conflict.	Remanded. Oral pronouncement controls; district court must amend written judgment/Statement of Reasons to conform to the oral sentence.

United States v. Eaglin, 913 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2019) (district court must make factual findings that a condition addresses a realistic danger and is no greater than reasonably necessary)
United States v. Bleau, 930 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2019) (condition requires individualized assessment and articulation unless obvious from the record)
United States v. A‑Abras Inc., 185 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 1999) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)
United States v. Jacques, 321 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2003) (remand is proper remedy when written judgment conflicts with oral sentence)
United States v. Brigham, 569 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding adult‑pornography ban on supervised release where defendant’s history involved child pornography/distribution to minors)