United States v. Curtis Manuel
668 F. App'x 717
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Curtis Ray Manuel pled guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact with a child and was sentenced to 187 months imprisonment plus lifetime supervised release.
- On appeal (raised for the first time), Manuel challenged four special conditions of supervised release as constitutionally infirm: Special Condition 5 (restrictions on sexually stimulating material), Condition 8 (no contact with minors without prior written permission), and Conditions 12–13 (financial monitoring and restrictions on major purchases).
- The court applied plain-error review because Manuel did not raise these objections below.
- For Condition 5, the district court’s oral pronouncement limited the prohibition to "material that is sexually stimulating or sexually oriented," narrowing a broader written clause that had given probation broad discretion; the appellate court ordered the written judgment amended to match the oral pronouncement.
- For Condition 8, the court held the district court erred by failing to make an individualized, on-the-record assessment under Wolf Child, but found the error harmless given Manuel’s significant history of sexual misconduct.
- For Conditions 12–13, the court held financial monitoring and restrictions were reasonably related to deterrence and rehabilitation (including addressing substance abuse) and, even assuming error, Manuel failed to show prejudice; the conditions were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/vagueness of Condition 5 language giving probation discretion over "inappropriate" sexual material | Manuel: clause is vague and overbroad | Government: oral pronouncement limited the restriction to sexually stimulating/oriented material | Affirmed as narrowed; amend written judgment to reflect oral pronouncement |
| Imposition of blanket no-contact-with-minors condition (Condition 8) | Manuel: procedurally and substantively unreasonable; court failed to conduct individualized review | Government: condition necessary given offense history; any error was harmless | District court erred procedurally but error was harmless given history; condition affirmed |
| Financial monitoring and restrictions (Conditions 12–13) — relation to §3553 goals | Manuel: such monitoring/restrictions are improper or overbroad | Government: conditions relate to deterrence/rehabilitation and address substance abuse and responsible conduct | Affirmed; conditions are reasonably related to supervision goals and no prejudice shown |
| Standard of review for these late-raised challenges | Manuel: challenges still reviewable on appeal | Government: plain-error review applies | Court applied plain-error review and found no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2003) (plain-error review applies to unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Hicks, 997 F.2d 594 (9th Cir. 1993) (oral pronouncement controls over inconsistent written judgment)
- United States v. Bee, 162 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 1998) (limits on possession of sexually explicit material can be permissible condition of supervised release)
- United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court must make individualized, on-the-record findings before restricting contact with family members)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (elements of plain-error review: error, that is plain, affects substantial rights, and warrants correction)
- United States v. Johnson, 998 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1993) (conditions of supervised release may be related to some but not all §3553(a) factors so long as reasonably related to others)