United States v. Lonjose
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25867
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Lonjose pled guilty to count one of an indictment charging sexual abuse of a minor in Indian Country; he waived appellate rights in the plea agreement.
- USPO sought two additional supervised-release conditions, including a broad ban on contact with anyone under 18 without PO permission; trial court initially did not include such restrictions in the judgment.
- District court proceeded to modify supervised-release conditions under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) after the judgment, with Lonjose objecting to the contact-with-minors condition.
- The district court granted the modification and Lonjose timely appealed, challenging the new condition as overly broad and infringing familial association.
- The government argued the appellate waiver in the plea agreement barred the appeal; court addressed scope of waiver and merits, ultimately reversing the district court’s imposition of the contested condition and remanding for scope determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the waiver covers post-sentencing modifications | Lonjose: waiver encompasses only original sentence | Lonjose: waiver bars no post-sentencing modification appeal | Waiver does not preclude this post-judgment appeal |
| Whether the contact-with-minors condition is permissible | Govt.: condition related to offense, not broader | Lonjose: infringes familial association and is not compelled | Condition reversed; no compelling need shown to limit contact with minor male relatives |
| Authority to modify supervised-release conditions under §3583(e)(2) | Govt.: court has authority to modify; appeal rights apply | Modification requires post-conviction proceedings; scope of waiver unclear | Modification authority exists; appeal under §3742 separate from original sentence; remand for scope compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavez-Salais v. United States, 337 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2003) (waiver scope depends on precise language of waiver; not all collateral challenges barred)
- Veri v. United States, 108 F.3d 1311 (10th Cir. 1997) (contract-like approach to interpreting waivers; ambiguities favor defendant)
- Hahn v. United States, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (requirements for enforcing appellate waivers; three-part test)
- Chavez-Salais (cited for comparison), 337 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2003) (discusses scope of waiver and collateral attacks)
- United States v. Green, 405 F.3d 1180 (10th Cir. 2005) (timeliness of notices of appeal; Rule 4(b) time bar)