United States v. Robert Paladino
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 19174
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Paladino responded to an undercover agent's ad in 2004 and provided videos of minor boy sexual content; arrest followed a chase and he discarded the video package.
- In 2006 Paladino pled guilty to distributing material depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor, waiving direct appeal in the plea agreement.
- In 2007 the district court sentenced Paladino to 120 months' imprisonment followed by 10 years' supervised release; a $100 special assessment was imposed.
- Upon release in 2013, Paladino's probation officer filed petitions alleging three supervised release violations related to treatment, reporting, and contact with felons.
- At the August 12, 2013 revocation hearing, the court did not personally address Paladino beyond confirming understanding of a government–defense eight-month sentence agreement; no allocution was provided.
- The district court imposed eight months' imprisonment followed by 116 months' supervised release and reaffirmed the existing conditions; Paladino appealed asserting allocution error and a challenge to a supervised release condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of allocution at revocation was plain error | Paladino argues no personal address violated Rule 32(i). | Paladino relies on Adams and Plotts to show allocution rights at revocation were violated. | Yes; plain error found requiring remand for resentencing. |
| Whether the supervised release condition restricting possession of child pornography-related materials is overbroad/vague and/or constitutionally? | Condition is overbroad and vague and imposed without justification. | Condition was properly tailored; any issue resolved upon remand. | Remand for resentencing obviates need to rule on the condition's validity. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Adams, 252 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2001) (allocution rights and plain-error standard in sentencing)
- United States v. Plotts, 359 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (allocution at revocation hearings and prejudice presumption)
- Green v. United States, 365 U.S. 301 (Supreme Court 1961) (historic allocution right and personal address requirement)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain-error framework and requirements)
- United States v. Loy, 191 F.3d 360 (3d Cir. 1999) (district court discretion in sentencing and remand guidance)
- Freeman v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2685 (Supreme Court 2011) (Rule 11(c)(1)(C) and district court discretion post-plea)