United States v. Rudd, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23383

Background

Rudd pled guilty to one count of illicit sexual conduct in foreign places in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c) under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
The plea agreement initially contemplated a ten-year supervised release with standard and certain agreed-upon special conditions; the government proposed a longer term and additional conditions, including residency limits.
The Probation Office recommended a 2,000-foot residency restriction near places primarily used by persons under 18, to be approved by the Probation Officer with changes pre-approved.
The district court accepted the plea and adopted the Probation Office’s recommendations, including the 2,000-foot restriction, over Rudd’s objections.
Rudd preserved his right to appeal conditions not listed in the plea agreement, and his sentencing memorandum objected to Probation Office terms while requesting adoption of the plea terms.
The district court provided a tentative ruling and rationale focusing on two conditions (victim contact and international travel) as warranted, but offered no adequate explanation for the 2,000-foot restriction, prompting appellate review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2,000-foot residency restriction was properly explained	Rudd preserved appeal; record lacks explanation for 2,000 feet.	Rudd objected; district court can adopt Probation Office terms with explanation.	Procedural error; remanded to explain or reconsider the 2,000-foot restriction.
Whether the district court adequately explained the restriction chosen over the plea agreement	Court overstated minor variations and failed to justify 2,000 feet versus direct view.	Court reasonably rejected other terms as minor variations.	Insufficient explanation; vacate restriction and remand for justification.
Whether the 2,000-foot restriction is substantively reasonable under §3583(d) and 3553(a)	Restriction tailored to protect public from offender; supported by record.	Unclear how 2,000 feet reduces risk; other jurisdictions show smaller distances.	Court does not decide substantive reasonableness; focus on procedural defect and remand.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Lakatos, 241 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for supervised-release conditions; burden on government)
United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th Cir. 2006) (necessity and relation of conditions under § 3583; burden on government)
United States v. Autery, 555 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2009) (preservation of issues and appellate review after plea agreements)
United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2010) (explanation may be inferred from record; remand for explicit reasoning when missing)
United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (need for explicit sentencing explanation; appellate review requires reasoned decision)
United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2008) (record may reveal reasons for imposing conditions; not always explicit on record)
United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2003) (balance of liberty interests and necessity of restrictions; § 3583 considerations)
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (S. Ct. 2001) (constitutional and practical limits on geographic restrictions)
Pollard v. Indiana, 908 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. 2009) (residency restrictions can create substantial housing disadvantage)
Baker v. Commonwealth, 295 S.W.3d 444 (Ky. 2010) (1,000-foot residency restriction may overly constrain housing)
Galloway v. Township of Galloway, 951 A.2d 236 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2008) (2,500-foot restrictions can exclude large portions of community)
Fross v. County of Allegheny, 20 A.3d 1193 (Pa. 2011) (2,500-foot restrictions scrutinized for impact on mobility)