United States v. Fey
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15033
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- In 1999 Fey, then 29, raped a 16-year-old coworker and was convicted in Massachusetts of rape and indecent assault; he served 9 years and has been sober since 1999.
- Fey registered as a sex offender multiple times after release but stopped updating registration after June 22, 2011; a warrant issued and he was arrested in 2014 while living with his fiancée and her four minor daughters.
- Fey pleaded guilty in federal court to failure to register under SORNA, 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
- The district court sentenced Fey to 18 months imprisonment, five years supervised release, and multiple special conditions; Fey appealed three of those conditions.
- The challenged conditions were: (1) a broad ban on direct or indirect contact with minors under 18 (unless approved by probation and in presence of an approved adult); (2) an employment restriction requiring probation approval before jobs/volunteer work involving direct contact with children; and (3) mandatory sexual-specific evaluation/treatment as directed by probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Fey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of broad associational ban on contact with minors | Condition reasonable and inferable from record given Fey's rape conviction, prior sex offense, probation violations, and living with minors | District court failed to provide case-specific explanation; record does not support so broad a ban given remote offense and lack of sex offenses against boys/family/young children | Vacated — court finds error in imposing unexplained, sweeping "direct or indirect" ban; reasoning cannot be inferred sufficiently from record |
| Employment restriction requiring probation approval for jobs with direct contact with minors | Reasonable and related to offense (rape occurred in workplace after providing victim alcohol); inferable from record | Overbroad for not distinguishing types of children; delegation/Occupational-restriction statutes argument | Affirmed — court concludes restriction limited to employment context, reasonably related, and not unduly broad; no plain error shown on delegation/statute arguments |
| Sexual-specific evaluation and sex-offender treatment directed/approved by probation | Condition permissible and was lawfully imposed | Challenges waived by defendant during colloquy at sentencing | Affirmed — defendant waived objection by requesting evaluation and accepting that treatment could be imposed later upon probation's direction |
| Whether plain-error standard satisfied for preserved/unchallenged arguments | N/A | Fey asks plain-error review for some claims not raised below | Mixed: plain error found for associational ban; not met for employment/statutory-delegation claims |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pabon, 819 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2016) (standards for special conditions of supervised release and when to infer district court reasoning)
- United States v. Del Valle–Cruz, 785 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2015) (vacating unexplained associational conditions where offense was remote and record lacked support)
- United States v. Padilla, 415 F.3d 211 (1st Cir. 2005) (articulating plain-error standard for appellate review)
- United States v. Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (explaining prejudice and integrity considerations when district court fails to explain conditions)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (defendant bears burden to show prejudice on plain-error review)
- United States v. Vélez-Luciano, 814 F.3d 553 (1st Cir. 2016) (considering specificity of risk to particular classes of minors when evaluating conditions)