United States v. Robert Faber, 17-1292

Robert Faber pleaded guilty in 2010 to receiving child sexual‑abuse images and was sentenced to 87 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release with conditions banning sexually explicit materials and computers.
While beginning supervised release at a residential reentry center, staff found 34 images of nude men and boys in Faber’s possession; the court expanded restrictions and required disclosure of such materials.
After release, Faber lived with roommate Tylyn Gieszer. Probation officers encountered deceit by Gieszer about a laptop; officers later seized a laptop that contained sexually explicit materials after obtaining consent to search.
Faber admitted three violations of supervised release (unauthorized computer access, possession of copyrighted sexually explicit material under 18 U.S.C. § 2256, and failing to disclose such materials).
The district court revoked part of his release, sentenced him to one year’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release, and imposed a special condition barring any contact between Faber and Gieszer; Faber appealed that no‑contact condition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court procedurally justified imposing a no‑contact condition	Faber argued the no‑contact condition was improper (insufficient justification)	District court explained it was to protect rehabilitation and deter further violations	The court found the district court adequately stated its rationale in open court
Whether the no‑contact condition was reasonably related to probation goals	Faber argued it unconstitutionally infringed association rights and was not sufficiently related	Government argued it was tailored to rehabilitation and public protection because Gieszer facilitated violations	The court held the condition was reasonably related to rehabilitation and public protection
Whether the condition imposed greater deprivation of liberty than necessary	Faber argued it was overly broad and restrictive of fundamental rights	Government argued the condition was narrowly targeted to one person who aided violations	The court held the restriction was no greater than necessary (limited to Gieszer)
Whether the condition conflicted with Sentencing Commission policy statements	Faber implied inconsistency with policy guidance on conditions implicating association	Government cited analogous Sentencing Commission guidance allowing limits on interactions with criminal associates	The court held the condition was consistent with relevant policy guidance

United States v. Brogdon, 503 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for reviewing special conditions of supervised release)
United States v. Kingsley, 241 F.3d 828 (6th Cir. 2001) (procedural requirement for sentencing justification in open court)
United States v. Childress, 874 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2017) (substantive standards for supervised‑release conditions)
United States v. Ritter, 118 F.3d 502 (6th Cir. 1997) (special conditions implicating association and speech receive careful review but are permissible for rehabilitation/protection)
United States v. Brandenburg, [citation="157 F. App'x 875"] (6th Cir. 2005) (upholding restrictions on cohabitation/association when tied to rehabilitation and protection)
United States v. Bortels, 962 F.2d 558 (6th Cir. 1992) (affirming condition to stay away from a specific person based on defendant’s history)