United States v. Fernando Fernandez
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 583
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Fernandez pleaded guilty in 2013 to failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- The district court imposed a life-term supervised-release condition requiring installation and maintenance of filtering software to monitor/block access to sexually oriented websites on any computer he possesses or uses.
- Fernandez objected, arguing the software condition was overbroad and unrelated to his offenses since neither the current nor underlying sex offenses involved computer or Internet use.
- Fernandez’s underlying state offense was sexual assault of a child (2003) in Texas; he later moved to Louisiana and failed to register as a sex offender there.
- He was arrested in Louisiana in 2013 for threatening someone with a knife; his failure-to-register issue led to the federal conviction.
- The court’s justification for the software condition tied it to perceived ease of Internet access, prompting an appeal challenging abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the software-installation condition is reasonably related to § 3583(d) factors. | Fernandez argues no relation to offense/history; no deterrence or protection provided. | Fernandez contends district court can tailor conditions to reduce risk, even if not tied to specific offenses. | Abuse of discretion; not reasonably related to the offenses or history. |
| Whether Tang controls and supports reversal of the installation condition. | Tang shows broader computer ban is improper where no offense involved Internet use. | Tang is distinguishable but supports scrutiny of relatedness; here no computer use in offenses. | Tang persuasive; court vacates and remands. |
| Whether the remedy is to vacate the software condition and correct judgment. | Not directly addressed; seeks continued restrictions if valid. | Condition invalid as to this defendant; remedial action appropriate. | Special condition vacated; remanded for corrected judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tang, 718 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2013) (vacated broad computer-use condition; relatedness to offenses limited)
- United States v. McGee, 559 F. App’x 323 (5th Cir. 2014) (upheld computer-use condition as protective; unrelated prior sex offenses)
- United States v. Hilliker, 469 F. App’x 386 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review; no reversible error banning Internet use despite unrelated offenses)
- United States v. Moran, 573 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2009) (internet ban supported where it serves public protection)
- United States v. Windless, 719 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2013) (district court may craft supervised-release conditions even if Guidelines are silent)
- United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 2011) (broad discretion in imposing special conditions under § 3583(d))
- United States v. Rodriguez, 558 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for supervised-release conditions)