United States v. Cohee, 17-3099

Cohee pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender (18 U.S.C. §2250) and received prison terms and supervised release with a special condition forbidding unsupervised contact with any minor.
The district court repeatedly imposed a special condition allowing contact with minors only when (1) an approved adult is present and aware of Cohee’s background, (2) during normal commercial business, or (3) for incidental contact.
Cohee objected generally to his sentence at the last revocation hearing but did not specifically object to or seek a ruling on the no-unsupervised-contact condition or argue that it violated §3583(d)(2) or his familial-association rights.
The government pointed to evidence beyond remote sex-offense convictions (e.g., a 2013 disorderly-conduct/threat conviction and a state no-contact order, difficulty completing supervision, and mental/behavioral concerns) to justify supervised contact restrictions.
On appeal Cohee argued the condition unlawfully infringed his right to familial association and violated §3583(d)(2); the Tenth Circuit reviewed for plain error because Cohee failed to preserve the specific objection.
The court affirmed, concluding Cohee failed to preserve the issue and in any event did not show plain error given record evidence supporting the restriction.

Issue	Cohee's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Preservation of objection to special condition	Cohee contends his general objection preserved the challenge to the no-unsupervised-contact condition	Government says general objection was insufficient; Cohee failed to alert court to this specific issue	Not preserved; only plain-error review applies
Availability of plain-error relief	Cohee urges plain error because he did not preserve the claim; argues the condition infringes familial rights and lacks §3583(d) support	Govt. argues Cohee failed to show the required four-prong plain-error showing	Cohee failed to show plain error: did not demonstrate error affecting substantial rights or a miscarriage of justice
Substantive validity of contact restriction (familial-association/§3583(d))	Condition impermissibly infringes his right to see his daughter; prior sex offense convictions too remote to justify restriction	Record contains other, recent evidence (threat conviction, no-contact order, supervision failures, mental/behavioral concerns) supporting a supervised-contact restriction	Court finds record evidence supports the special condition; Cohee did not rebut or challenge that evidence, so restriction stands

United States v. Burns, 775 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2014) (district courts must make supporting findings when imposing special conditions)
United States v. Bear, 769 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2014) (restrictions on contact with one’s own children require compelling evidence)
United States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard for review and statutory requirements for special conditions of supervised release)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (contemporaneous-objection rule and plain-error framework)