United States v. Parisi
821 F.3d 343
2d Cir.2016Background
- Parisi pled guilty (2003) to four counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and one count of witness tampering; he operated an adult website and videotaped and distributed images of under‑age females.
- He was sentenced in 2004 to 150 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release; released on supervised release December 24, 2014.
- In January 2015, U.S. Probation petitioned to add standard sex‑offender supervisory conditions: (1) warrantless searches of person/property with reasonable suspicion; and (2) polygraph/CVSA testing for supervision/treatment purposes.
- The district court held a hearing, requested supplemental briefing, and on March 23, 2015 granted the modification; Parisi appealed.
- Parisi argued (a) modification required new/changed circumstances specific to him, (b) new conditions were not reasonably related to offense/overly burdensome, and (c) the court failed to hold an adequate Rule 32.1(c)(1) hearing.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the modification and no procedural error requiring reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3583(e) permits modification absent new/changed circumstances specific to the defendant | Parisi: court may modify only when new or unforeseen circumstances specific to defendant justify it | Gov: no such requirement; court need only consider §3553(a) factors | Court: No prerequisite of new/changed circumstances; modification lawful so long as §3553(a) considered (affirmed) |
| Whether added search condition is reasonably related and not greater than necessary | Parisi: search condition is overbroad and not reasonably related to offense | Probation: technology changes and offense history justify broader search with reasonable‑suspicion safeguard | Court: Search condition reasonably related, consistent with Guidelines, not an abuse of discretion (affirmed) |
| Whether polygraph/CVSA requirement is permissible | Parisi: condition improper here; Johnson distinguishable | Probation: testing serves rehabilitation/deterrence; Parisi’s deceptive conduct supports it | Court: Polygraph/CVSA condition permissible and not an abuse of discretion (affirmed) |
| Whether Rule 32.1(c)(1) hearing was inadequate | Parisi: hearing insufficient; he lacked opportunity to speak/present mitigation | Gov: court held hearing, heard counsel, ordered supplemental briefing — no requirement to decide immediately or hold a second hearing | Court: No plain‑error; hearing met Rule 32.1(c)(1) requirements (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lussier, 104 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting courts may modify supervised‑release conditions to account for new or unforeseen circumstances)
- United States v. Brown, 402 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for review of supervised‑release conditions and §3583(d) requirements)
- United States v. Vargas, 564 F.3d 618 (2d Cir. 2009) (district court may extend supervised release without new circumstances)
- United States v. Bainbridge, 746 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2014) (modification of supervised‑release conditions not contingent on changed circumstances)
- United States v. Begay, 631 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2011) (no requirement of changed circumstances to modify conditions)
- United States v. Davies, 380 F.3d 329 (8th Cir. 2004) (statute authorizing modification does not require new evidence or changed circumstances)
- United States v. Johnson, 446 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 2006) (polygraph testing can further sentencing goals without excessive liberty deprivation)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (waiver and preservation rules for appellate review)
- United States v. Jackson, 346 F.3d 22 (2d Cir. 2003) (procedural waiver principles)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (plain‑error review standard for unpreserved claims)