United States v. Lucas Lacy, 877 F.3d 790

Lucas J. Lacy was convicted of receiving and distributing child pornography and sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release.
While on supervised release he incurred multiple alleged violations; he admitted two (failure to timely report a firing and unsuccessful discharge from sexual-abuse treatment) after earlier allegations were dismissed.
The district court revoked supervised release and, on the government’s recommendation, sentenced Lacy to nine months’ imprisonment followed by five years’ supervised release, reimposing original and adding new conditions.
Lacy appealed, arguing the revocation sentence interrupted his progress and that certain supervised-release conditions (pornography and Internet restrictions) were overly restrictive.
He did not object to the challenged conditions at the original sentencing or at revocation, so appellate review for those conditions proceeded under the plain-error standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the nine-month revocation sentence was an abuse of discretion	Lacy: 180-day public-law placement would better continue rehabilitation and the nine-month term needlessly interrupts progress	Government: revocation sentence is reasonable given repeated noncompliance, failure to register, and public-safety concerns	Court: No abuse of discretion; sentence within 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and justified by § 3553(a) factors
Whether pornography ban is overbroad under § 3583(d) and First Amendment	Lacy: condition is unusually restrictive and may be overbroad (relies on Kelly)	Government: ban is related to offense and necessary to deter and protect public; narrower than the condition invalidated in Kelly	Court: Condition upheld as reasonably related and not a greater deprivation than necessary; distinguished from Kelly
Whether Internet/computer restrictions are overly restrictive	Lacy: cites Mark to argue computer/Internet bans can be improper	Government: conditions are partial restrictions requiring prior approval and tailored because Lacy used a computer to distribute child pornography	Court: Conditions upheld; not a complete Internet ban and are reasonably necessary given Lacy’s offense (Durham analogy)
Standard of review for conditions never objected to at sentencing	Lacy: challenges on appeal though did not object below	Government: plain-error review applies	Court: Plain-error standard applies; Lacy failed to show prejudicial error

United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for revocation sentencing decisions)
United States v. Holmes, 283 F.3d 966 (8th Cir.) (appellate review limits for revocation sentences)
United States v. Ahlemeier, 391 F.3d 915 (8th Cir.) (affirming nine-month revocation sentence for child-pornography supervisee)
United States v. Crume, 422 F.3d 728 (8th Cir.) (wide discretion in imposing supervised-release terms)
United States v. Davis, 452 F.3d 991 (8th Cir.) (§ 3583(d) requirements for supervised-release conditions)
United States v. Kelly, 625 F.3d 516 (8th Cir.) (invalidating overly broad pornography restriction)
United States v. Durham, 618 F.3d 921 (8th Cir.) (upholding Internet-approval restriction; not a complete ban)
United States v. Demers, 634 F.3d 982 (8th Cir.) (upholding pornography-access ban for child-pornography offenders)
United States v. Mark, 425 F.3d 505 (8th Cir.) (vacating an overly broad computer-use prohibition)