United States v. Ruben Prieto
801 F.3d 547
| 5th Cir. | 2015Background
- Ruben Prieto pleaded guilty to failing to register/update as a sex offender under SORNA; PSR recommended a Guidelines range of 15–21 months and special supervised‑release conditions.
- The district court sentenced Prieto to 15 months’ imprisonment and life supervised release, adopting PSR‑recommended special conditions: (1) a lifetime ban on purchasing/possessing/using sexually stimulating/oriented materials ("pornography restriction") and (2) a ban on residing/going to places "where a minor or minors are known to frequent" without probation approval ("geographic restriction").
- Prieto did not object to the special conditions at sentencing but timely appealed, advancing a plain‑error challenge to both conditions and raising a now‑moot Guidelines‑calculation claim about a §2A3.5(b)(2) reduction.
- Prieto argued the pornography restriction violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(c) and 3583(d) (insufficient explanation; not reasonably related to statutory factors; greater deprivation than necessary) and violated the First Amendment.
- The government relied on precedents upholding similar conditions and argued modification procedures and probation‑office guidance mitigate any harm.
- The Fifth Circuit found error in imposing the pornography condition (unexplained and not shown to be reasonably related to statutory factors) but declined to correct it under the fourth prong of plain‑error review; the geographic restriction was affirmed under Fields.
Issues
| Issue | Prieto's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pornography restriction — adequacy of reasons and relation to §3553/§3583 factors | District court gave no reasons; record lacks evidence linking pornography to Prieto’s offense or risk of recidivism | Condition was recommended in PSR; similar conditions have been upheld in other cases; modulation possible via modification | Condition was imposed without adequate explanation and is not shown to be reasonably related to statutory factors (error is plain) but appellate court declined to correct under plain‑error prong four |
| Pornography restriction — First Amendment challenge | Ban is overbroad and infringes rights to view lawful adult material | Law is unsettled; no plain constitutional error under existing circuit law | Court held Prieto cannot show any constitutional error was "plain" and therefore fails plain‑error review on First Amendment ground |
| Geographic restriction (ban on places where minors frequent) | Condition is overbroad and imposes undue liberty deprivation | Identical condition was upheld in Fields; Prieto’s child‑molestation history and failure to register justify condition; condition is modifiable and can be limited by probation guidance | Affirmed under Fields; construed to exclude ordinary public places (grocery stores, transit hubs) and cover places like schools/playgrounds |
| Guidelines reduction (§2A3.5(b)(2)) | Prieto claimed entitlement to a 3‑level reduction for voluntary correction | Moot because defendant released from custody | Moot — claim conceded as moot by Prieto |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2012) (sets four‑part plain‑error standard)
- United States v. Salazar, 743 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014) (vacated unexplained pornography prohibition as not reasonably related to statutory factors)
- United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 799 (5th Cir. 2015) (upheld geographic restriction "places where minors are known to frequent" and gave limiting construction)
- United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2013) (upheld lifetime pornography ban for defendant convicted of child pornography and with extensive sexual‑offense history)
- United States v. Windless, 719 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2013) (invalidated an overbroad restriction that prohibited even indirect contact with minors)
- United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 2011) (addressed plain‑error review of conditions implicating the First Amendment)
- United States v. Segura, 747 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2014) (failure to register under SORNA is not a "sex offense" under supervised‑release guideline)
- United States v. Perazza‑Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (discussed relevance of pornography use to supervised‑release restrictions)