United States v. Elliott Duke
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9439
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Duke pled guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography; district court sentenced him to 240 months (statutory maximum) and lifetime supervised release with special conditions.
- Investigation found 168 videos and 187 still images of child pornography on his computers; admissions included trading images and sexual communications with a person he believed to be 16.
- PSR calculated total offense level 37, Guidelines range 210–262 months (capped at 240 by statute); Duke sought a downward variance based on personal history and mitigation.
- At sentencing the court cited the nature of the offenses (including images depicting rape of toddlers), Duke’s admissions (rape fantasies, contact with a minor), and § 3553(a) factors in imposing 240 months.
- Duke appealed, challenging procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence and two lifetime special conditions: an unconditional ban on access to any computer capable of internet access and an absolute ban on contact with anyone under 18.
Issues
| Issue | Duke’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence (failure to explain) | District court failed to adequately articulate reasons at hearing; boilerplate §3553 statement insufficient | Written Statement of Reasons (SOR) and consideration of materials satisfied explanation requirement | No plain error; SOR provided adequate explanation for appellate review |
| Substantive reasonableness of within-Guidelines 240-month sentence | Mitigating factors (military service, abuse history, mental illness, no criminal history) warrant downward variance; Guidelines §2G2.2 flawed | Guidelines range properly calculated; district court reasonably weighed §3553(a) factors | Affirmed; Duke failed to rebut presumption of reasonableness |
| Lifetime, absolute ban on computer/Internet access as supervised-release condition | Blanket, unconditional lifetime ban is overbroad and not narrowly tailored; impedes ordinary life | Condition related to offense and public protection; potential for future modification | Vacated; abuse of discretion—absolute lifetime ban not narrowly tailored; court should consider narrower, conditional limits |
| Lifetime, absolute ban on contact with persons under 18 as supervised-release condition | Absolute ban is overbroad and prevents incidental/benign contact | Condition reasonably related to protecting minors given offense conduct | Vacated; abuse of discretion—association ban must be narrowly tailored and may be conditional rather than absolute |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing sentencing reasonableness)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedures for sentencing review and deference to district court)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (explanation required for sentencing, especially when rejecting nonfrivolous arguments)
- United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 2001) (upholding short-term absolute Internet ban; associational restrictions may exclude casual encounters)
- United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 2011) (upholding long-term conditional computer/Internet restriction with prior-approval mechanism)
- United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2013) (upholding conditional lifetime Internet restriction with probation approval; limits on scope)
- United States v. Sealed Juvenile, 781 F.3d 747 (5th Cir. 2015) (recognizing internet access as essential and warning against overly burdensome prior-approval requirements)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 558 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2009) (associational bans must be narrowly tailored; balance liberty interest and public protection)
- United States v. Brigham, 569 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2009) (permitting limited-duration Internet restrictions)
- United States v. Heckman, 592 F.3d 400 (3d Cir. 2010) (rejecting unconditional lifetime internet ban as insufficiently tailored)
- United States v. Voelker, 489 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2007) (criticizing sweeping lifetime Internet bans)
- United States v. Holm, 326 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2003) (finding total Internet bans overly broad)
- United States v. Ramos, 763 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2014) (future modification does not justify imposing overly broad conditions at sentencing)