United States v. Burns
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24615
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- James Burns was convicted of possession and attempted possession of child pornography and sentenced to 63 months imprisonment plus 5 years supervised release.
- A supervised-release special condition required Burns to obtain probation-office approval before contacting any minors, including his youngest daughter, S.B.
- Burns did not object to the condition at sentencing; appellate review is for plain error.
- The district court made no on-the-record, particularized findings justifying restriction of Burns’s contact with his daughter.
- The record lacked evidence Burns had abused or molested children and showed generally positive relationships with most of his children.
- The government conceded at oral argument the district court did not make the required findings and defended the condition as a protective alternative permitting probation-supervised contact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the special condition restricting contact with Burns’s daughter invaded a fundamental right requiring particularized findings | Burns: restriction intrudes on constitutional right of familial association and required compelling justification and on-the-record findings | Government: condition is a permissible protective measure allowing supervised contact and was appropriate given offense | Court: error was plain — district court failed to make required findings; vacated the condition and remanded for reconsideration |
| Whether the error was plain under existing precedent | Burns: precedent clearly requires findings when special conditions invade fundamental rights | Government: did not press a contrary legal position on this point | Court: error was ‘‘clear and obvious’’ under Tenth Circuit precedent at the time of sentencing |
| Whether the error affected substantial rights (i.e., reasonable probability of different outcome) | Burns: absent findings, reasonable probability the court would not have imposed the restriction given lack of supporting evidence | Government: argued condition provided a reasonable alternative to protect children while permitting contact | Court: record likely insufficient to justify the restriction; reasonable probability of different result exists |
| Whether the error seriously affected fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings | Burns: failure to make required findings undermines fairness and integrity of sentencing | Government: asserted protective purpose of condition | Court: error undermined fairness/integrity; satisfied plain-error final prong |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Edgin, 92 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 1996) (father has fundamental liberty interest in familial relationship; findings required to restrict contact)
- United States v. Lonjose, 663 F.3d 1292 (10th Cir. 2011) (similar contact restriction implicated familial-association rights; justification required)
- United States v. Hahn, 551 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2008) (standards for special conditions of supervised release)
- United States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686 (10th Cir. 2011) (district courts have broad discretion but must justify conditions that invade fundamental rights)
- United States v. Smith, 606 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2010) (precedent requiring supporting findings for special conditions)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (U.S. 2010) (plain-error standard—reasonable probability the error affected outcome)
- United States v. Doyle, 711 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2013) (failure to make required findings on sex-offender conditions likely affects substantial rights and fairness)
- United States v. Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (erroneous special-condition imposition affected substantial rights when record did not support condition)