United States v. Chanda Huor
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4287
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1998 Huor (age 16) pleaded guilty to raping a 4-year-old; he was required to register as a sex offender and later had multiple failures-to-register convictions.
- In 2013 Huor moved interstate, failed to update his registry, used aliases, and was arrested after living with women who had young children; he pleaded guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- The district court sentenced Huor to 24 months imprisonment and 10 years supervised release with multiple conditions, including (a) a special sex-offender treatment condition, (b) a ban on sexually stimulating materials, (c) a special condition deferring to therapist-imposed "lifestyle restrictions," and (d) in the written judgment, a prohibition on residing/going to places frequented by minors and a standard treatment condition.
- Defense objected to the treatment and materials conditions; the court modified the treatment and materials conditions to require an initial evaluation and stated it would "amend and abate" the treatment requirement if the clinician found treatment unnecessary and Huor not dangerous.
- On appeal Huor challenged five conditions; the Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (objected conditions) and plain error (unchallenged at sentencing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Huor) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of sex-offender treatment condition | Treatment unnecessary; not supported by §3553(a) findings | Condition related to offense, history, and public protection | Affirmed — treatment condition reasonably related to §3553(a) and within discretion |
| Initial-evaluation qualification (delegation concern) | Qualification improperly delegates sentencing power to clinician | Court retained ultimate authority to "amend and abate" based on clinician findings | Affirmed — no improper delegation; court retained supervisory authority but must meaningfully review clinician findings |
| Ban on sexually stimulating materials | Condition not supported by record; not narrowly tailored | Necessary for deterrence, protection, and rehabilitation given sexual offense history | Vacated — insufficient individualized factual basis; analogous to Salazar; condition not reasonably related to statutory factors |
| Therapist-imposed "lifestyle restrictions" (and therapist delegation) | Condition impermissibly delegates judicial authority to therapist | Condition standardly tailors supervision and treatment | Vacated plain error — identical to impermissible condition in Morin; undermines judicial authority |
| Conflict between oral sentence and written judgment (residence ban and duplicate standard condition) | Written judgment adds/changes conditions not pronounced orally | Written conditions reflect sentencing court's intent and supervisory requirements | Vacated/reformed — written-only residence/place restriction and redundant Standard Condition 14 removed; oral pronouncement controls |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Morin, 832 F.3d 513 (5th Cir. 2016) (limits delegation of sentencing authority to therapists/probation officers)
- United States v. Salazar, 743 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014) (sexually stimulating materials condition must be supported by individualized record evidence)
- United States v. Mickelson, 433 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2006) (court must retain ultimate responsibility when delegating limited functions)
- United States v. Franklin, 838 F.3d 564 (5th Cir. 2016) (analysis of delegation through condition wording)
- United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2015) (special conditions must be tailored and supported by findings)
- United States v. Windless, 719 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2013) (limitations on conditions that impose greater liberty deprivation than necessary)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard explanation)