United States v. Joseph Lacoste, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8714

Joseph LaCoste pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371; other charges were dismissed under the plea agreement.
Victims and supporters spoke at sentencing; one victim alleged LaCoste posted disparaging comments about her online and at community venues after indictment.
The district court sentenced LaCoste to 60 months’ imprisonment and imposed supervised‑release conditions including: (1) prohibition on Internet use without prior probation approval; and (2) a ban on residing in Linn, Benton, Lane, or Marion Counties.
Neither challenged condition was recommended in the Presentence Report or proposed by the government; counsel objected only to the residency restriction at sentencing.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the Internet condition for plain error and the residency condition for abuse of discretion, vacating both and remanding for possible narrower tailoring.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of blanket Internet‑use prohibition as supervised‑release condition	LaCoste argued the total ban (subject to probation approval) is overbroad and imposes greater liberty deprivations than necessary given his conduct	Government defended the condition as not a total ban because probation approval could allow necessary Internet use; court needed discretion to prevent harassment	Vacated. Total ban (even with probation‑approval carveout) is overbroad where Internet use was not integral to the offense and defendant has no history of Internet‑based crimes; remanded to craft narrower condition if warranted (plain‑error review)
Validity of residency restriction barring four counties	LaCoste argued the banishment condition lacked an adequate factual basis and improperly extended beyond the community of concern	Government argued restriction reasonable because projects and victims were in the four‑county region and to allow community healing	Vacated. Court failed to explain why returning to Albany (Linn/Benton) made reoffending more likely and gave no basis for including Lane and Marion; remand for fuller explanation or narrower tailoring (abuse‑of‑discretion review)

United States v. Barsumyan, 517 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (standards for plain error review)
United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2003) (requirements for supervised‑release conditions under § 3583)
United States v. Sales, 476 F.3d 732 (9th Cir. 2007) (probation‑approval proviso does not save an overbroad Internet ban)
United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2005) (total Internet bans upheld where Internet use was integral to offense)
United States v. Scott, 316 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2003) (improper to delegate open‑ended authority to probation officer to cure overbroad condition)
United States v. Collins, 684 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2012) (requiring factual basis on record for restrictive supervised‑release conditions)
United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding residency conditions when defendant’s community ties contributed to past criminality)