United States v. Marc Accardi
399 U.S. App. D.C. 283
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Appellant Marc Accardi pled guilty to transportation and possession of child pornography in the D.C. district court.
- He was sentenced September 2, 2009 to concurrent 100-month terms and a 40-year supervised-release term with multiple conditions.
- The district court imposed conditions including a broad ban on patronizing certain venues, a computer-use restriction, and participation in alcohol treatment.
- Accardi did not object at sentencing; he later appeals the duration of supervision and the challenged conditions.
- The case on appeal involves plain-error review because no objections to the sentence or conditions were raised in the district court.
- The government contends Accardi waived his appeals by plea, but the court analyzes waiver only if knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 40-year supervised release term was procedurally and substantively reasonable | Accardi argues improper Guidelines application and unwarranted disparity | Accardi contends sentence eviscerates due process and should be shorter | Sentence affirmed; no plain error; lifetime release reasonable given conduct and recidivism concerns |
| Whether the pornography venue ban is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad | Accardi claims broad ban allows arbitrary enforcement | Ban limited by examples to places where adult entertainment is primary | Ban construed narrowly to avoid vagueness; not plain error |
| Whether the internet usage restriction is improperly expansive or improperly delegated | Accardi argues excessive control over online speech and overbroad | Restriction reasonably related to offense; circuit split acknowledged | Not plain error; restriction upheld given sex-offense context and lack of settled consensus |
| Whether the alcohol-treatment requirement improperly delegates to the probation office | Delegation of treatment decisions implicates due process and liberty interests | Other circuits uphold similar delegation; district court may rely on probation office | Not plain error; circuit split prevents clear reversal; district court not error |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (presumption of reasonable conformity to the Guidelines)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (plain-error standard for sentencing procedures)
- United States v. Sullivan, 451 F.3d 884 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (plain-error review for failure to object at sentencing)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (definition of plain error and correction standard)
- United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2008) (lifetime supervised release for possession of child pornography upheld)
- United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2001) (vagueness concerns in a pornography prohibition)