United States v. Kyle E. McClamma
613 F. App'x 846
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2006 McClamma pled guilty to possession of child pornography; sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment followed by lifetime supervised release with a condition barring direct contact with minors without probation approval.
- Pre-sentencing release had an exception for his newborn child, but no written exception was included in the supervised-release order for his daughter.
- In 2011 the court (by agreement) allowed supervised contact with his older daughter under a safety plan; in 2012 McClamma filed a §2255 petition challenging the supervised-release condition (pending below).
- In 2013 the district court denied early termination of supervised release; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding the court had considered §3553(a) factors.
- In 2014 McClamma moved under 18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(2) to modify conditions to allow unsupervised visits with both daughters; probation and the government recommended unsupervised contact only with the newborn and continued supervised contact with the older daughter.
- The district court allowed unsupervised contact with the new daughter but retained supervised contact for the older daughter; McClamma appealed the partial denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court considered §3553(a) when declining to modify supervised-release conditions | McClamma: Court failed to consider §3553(a) factors in 2014 decision | Government/Probation: Court had recently and adequately considered §3553(a); record shows consideration | No abuse of discretion; record reflects consideration of §3553(a) (through prior orders and conduct) |
| Whether allowing unsupervised contact with newborn but not older daughter was arbitrary | McClamma: Differential treatment is arbitrary and unjustified | Government/Probation: Changed circumstances limited to newborn; ex-wife opposed modification; polygraph results incomplete | Not arbitrary; court permissibly tailored conditions based on different facts and safety concerns |
| Whether supervised-contact condition is substantively unreasonable | McClamma: Condition is substantively unreasonable | Government: Condition is appropriate for public protection and based on case history and supervision needs | Claims not decided on appeal because McClamma failed to raise them below; preserved for his §2255 petition pending in district court |
| Whether constitutional challenges may be raised in this appeal | McClamma: Condition violates due process and parental rights | Government: Such arguments were not raised in the modification motion and thus waived for this appeal; §2255 is the proper vehicle | Constitutional claims are not addressed here due to procedural waiver; left for district court in §2255 proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Serrapio, 754 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion review of supervised-release condition modifications)
- United States v. Moran, 573 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- United States v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784 (11th Cir. 2005) (district court need not explicitly state consideration of each §3553(a) factor)
- United States v. Dorman, 488 F.3d 936 (11th Cir. 2007) (record may show consideration of §3553(a) absent explicit on-the-record statements)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues not raised below generally will not be considered on appeal)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (context for discussion of sentencing procedures and standards)
- United States v. McClamma, [citation="548 F. App'x 598"] (11th Cir. 2013) (prior appellate decision affirming denial of early termination and noting §3553(a) consideration)