United States v. Brian Nestor
678 F. App'x 73
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Nestor was convicted of sex offenses involving minors, sentenced in May 2008 to 120 months’ imprisonment and ten years’ supervised release.
- Two months before his release, Probation sought to modify supervised-release conditions to: restrict and monitor computer use (home and work) and bar loitering within 500 feet of places where children gather absent probation approval.
- Probation's justification: (1) Nestor refused recommended pre-release mental-health/sex-offender treatment and misrepresented compliance to a provider; (2) he communicated from prison computers with a convicted sex offender (logged as “clergy”); (3) supervising officer testified such conditions are routine for similar offenders.
- Nestor said counsel advised him not to begin treatment until release and characterized the correspondent as a mentor; he contested the necessity of the new restrictions and their impact on employment.
- The District Court held a Rule 32.1 hearing, found post-sentencing noncompliance/new circumstances, and imposed the requested monitoring and anti-loitering conditions. Nestor appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court lacked authority to modify supervised-release conditions absent violations or unforeseen circumstances | Nestor: No violation occurred and no changed/unforeseen circumstances justified additional liberty restrictions | Government: §3583(e)(2) allows modification; post-sentencing conduct (misrepresentations and prison communications) justified change | Court: No plain-language changed-circumstances requirement; even if required, post-sentencing conduct sufficed to justify modification |
| Whether the imposed conditions were reasonably related to §3553(a) factors | Nestor: Conditions (computer monitoring, 500-ft anti-loitering) are greater than necessary and may hinder employment | Government: Conditions tied to offense nature and public-safety/deterrence goals; routinely imposed for similar offenders | Court: Conditions reasonably related to §3553(a) goals and not greater than necessary; District Court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Court afforded adequate procedure and explanation for the conditions | Nestor: Challenges sufficiency and burdens on reintegration/employment | Government: District Court held hearing and considered §3553(a) factors and probation testimony | Court: Rule 32.1 hearing and meaningful §3553(a) consideration occurred; explanations adequate |
| Whether workplace restrictions unduly impair employment | Nestor: Monitoring work computers and anti-loitering may preclude job opportunities | Government: Proffered employer willing to accommodate and probation can grant exceptions | Court: No abuse of discretion; record supports that restrictions were not unduly onerous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 445 F.3d 713 (3d Cir. 2006) (standard of review and that supervised-release modifications are reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Murray, 692 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2012) (discusses whether changed circumstances are required to modify supervised release)
- United States v. Miller, 594 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2010) (requires district courts to explain and justify supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Albertson, 645 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2011) (applies §3553(a) parsimony principle to supervised-release conditions)