United States v. Sammy Salazar
743 F.3d 445
5th Cir.2014Background
- Sammy Salazar, previously convicted of third-degree sexual abuse, was later convicted under SORNA for failing to register and given time served plus 15 years supervised release; some special conditions were previously struck on appeal.
- After revocation in 2012 for new allegations (family assault, failing to notify probation officer, and failing to meet a sex-offender counselor), the district court sentenced Salazar to 12 months imprisonment followed by 14 years supervised release and imposed nine special conditions, including Condition No. 6 banning possession, purchase, or use of sexually stimulating/oriented materials.
- At sentencing counsel attempted to object but was interrupted and overruled multiple times; counsel had sought to preserve a more specific objection but could not complete it.
- Salazar appealed, arguing (1) Condition No. 6 is not reasonably related to the statutory factors for supervised release and (2) it is overbroad and infringes First Amendment rights.
- The government urged plain-error review; Salazar argued abuse of discretion because the district court prevented a specific objection. The Fifth Circuit held the objection was preserved and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The Fifth Circuit concluded the district court abused its discretion by imposing Condition No. 6 without explaining how it was reasonably related to the § 3553(a) factors and vacated and remanded the condition for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Salazar's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the objection was preserved / standard of review | Court cut off counsel; further objection would be futile — review for abuse of discretion | Objection was too vague (overly burdensome) — plain error review should apply | Objection preserved under Castillo/Mendiola analogies; review for abuse of discretion |
| Whether Condition No. 6 is reasonably related to supervised release goals | No nexus: no evidence porn or sexual materials contributed to the predicate offense or risk of recidivism | Condition promotes deterrence, rehabilitation, public protection and reduces recidivism risk | District court abused discretion by failing to explain relation to statutory factors; vacated and remanded |
| Whether the condition imposed greater deprivation of liberty than necessary | (Raised if condition found related) Condition is overbroad and unnecessary | Condition is reasonably necessary to achieve goals | Not decided — court did not reach necessity prong and remanded for explanation |
| Whether Condition No. 6 violates the First Amendment as overbroad | Prohibits lawful pornography and sexually stimulating but non-pornographic material — unconstitutional | Similar prohibitions have been upheld; restriction is permissible on supervised release | Not reached; court remanded on nexus/explanation ground first |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 2001) (standard for supervised-release conditions review)
- United States v. Woods, 547 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (review of conditions)
- United States v. Mondragon–Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review when objections lack specificity)
- United States v. Castillo, 430 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2005) (futility of objection preserves reviewability)
- United States v. Mendiola, 42 F.3d 259 (5th Cir. 1994) (interrupted objections may preserve issues)
- United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding conditions justified by criminal history)
- United States v. Prochner, 417 F.3d 54 (1st Cir. 2005) (special conditions may be supported by criminal history even if unrelated to conviction)
- United States v. Brigham, 569 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2009) (upholding bans on sexually explicit material tied to public protection/deterrence)
- United States v. Warren, 186 F.3d 358 (3d Cir. 1999) (requirement that district courts state factual findings for special conditions)
- United States v. Gilman, 478 F.3d 440 (1st Cir. 2007) (vacatur where district court’s rationale for condition was unclear)
- United States v. Rhone, 535 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2008) (remand where record did not support condition)
- United States v. Voelker, 489 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2007) (remanding for lack of explanation for ban on sexually explicit materials)
- United States v. Perazza–Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (affirmance possible when reasoning can be inferred from record)
- United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (striking pornography ban where rationale did not connect to the offense)