United States v. Jeremy Cary
678 F. App'x 421
7th Cir.2017Background
- Jeremy Cary, previously convicted for failing to register as a sex offender, was on supervised release and reincarcerated after his third reported violation.
- The district court found eight violations of release conditions; Cary challenges only the finding that he contacted a female under 18 using an unauthorized cell phone/text app.
- Evidence at the revocation hearing: Cary’s phone showed a sent text to R.K., a 15-year-old; R.K. was in his address book; the texting app auto‑suggested contacts and displayed recipient photos.
- Cary admitted sending the text but claimed it was accidental (intended for his girlfriend) and that he did not know R.K. was a minor; he also noted R.K. did not respond.
- The district court credited the probation officer’s evidence and discredited Cary’s denial based on his history and the photo display; it concluded Cary knowingly/texted a minor and that the message was received.
- The district court revoked supervised release and imposed 14 months’ imprisonment plus 36 months’ supervised release; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence that Cary intentionally contacted a person under 18 | Government: phone records, contact in address book, sent message, photo display support intent and receipt | Cary: text was accidental (mis-tap), did not know recipient was a minor, no response so no contact | Court: Affirmed — evidence supports knowing/intended contact and receipt |
Key Cases Cited
- Raney v. United States, 797 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for supervised release revocation)
- Ball v. Kotter, 723 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2013) (presumption that electronic messages, once sent, are received)
- Kennell v. Gates, 215 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2000) (same presumption for electronic communications)
- Contreras v. United States, 820 F.3d 255 (7th Cir. 2016) (district court not required to credit defendant's testimony)
- Austin v. United States, 806 F.3d 425 (7th Cir. 2015) (same principle regarding witness credibility)
- Musso v. United States, 643 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2011) (revocation of supervised release and abuse-of-discretion review)