United States v. Charles Murray
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18632
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Murray pleaded guilty in NJ (2004) to traveling interstate to engage in illicit conduct with a minor; aggregate 83 months per count, concurrent, plus 3-year supervised release.
- In PA (2004) he pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography; 40-month term, with 28 months concurrent to NJ and 12 consecutive, plus 3-year supervised release concurrent with NJ.
- Initial supervised release included various conditions, including sex offender registration, polygraph, and computer monitoring.
- Post-release in 2010, jurisdiction moved to the Western District of Pennsylvania; Probation sought to modify conditions to align with WDPA practices, adding new terms.
- District Court granted the petitions, imposing nine new conditions (some later retracted by the Probation Office), and Murray appealed.
- Appellate panel remands to the District Court for clearer, §3553(a)-focused justification of any modified conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new/changed circumstances are required to modify supervised release. | Murray: changes require new unforeseen circumstances. | Government: no fixed requirement; transfer can justify modification. | Remand to provide proper §3553(a) justification; issue unresolved |
| Whether transfer of jurisdiction constitutes a validChanged circumstance for modification. | Murray: transfer does not relate to deterrence/rehab. | Government: transfer is a valid changed circumstance permitting modification. | Courts may consider transfer as a changed circumstance; remand for explanation |
| Whether the nine newly imposed conditions were reasonably related and not greater than necessary. | Murray: many conditions were inappropriate or duplicative; not justified under §3553(a). | Government: conditions serve §3553(a) goals and rehabilitation. | vacate nine conditions and remand for explicit §3553(a) analysis |
| Whether the district court adequately explained how the new conditions meet §3553(a). | Murray: district court failed to apply §3553(a) factors or provide specific reasoning. | Government: sufficient justification exists in the record. | remand for explicit, individualized §3553(a) consideration |
| Whether certain conditions raise constitutional or practical concerns (e.g., First Amendment implications of restricting sexually explicit material; breadth of workplace searches). | Murray: restrictions, especially Condition Three and Nine, are overly broad and unreasoned. | Government: restrictions are appropriate to supervision goals. | district court should address tailored justification on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 445 F.3d 713 (3d Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing and modification)
- United States v. Miller, 594 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2010) (requirement to discuss §3553(a) factors; remand when explanations are lacking)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc; need for meaningful consideration of §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Begay, 631 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2011) (no required showing of changed circumstances for modification)
- United States v. Davies, 380 F.3d 329 (8th Cir. 2004) (modification may be based on evidence available at sentencing)
- United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2001) (narrow tailoring of restrictions to aid public safety)
- United States v. Voelker, 489 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2007) (First Amendment considerations in restricting adult material)