United States v. Timothy Lantz, 443 F. App'x 135

Background

Lantz pled guilty to transporting child pornography and failing to register as a sex offender; district court imposed a 15-year prison sentence and lifetime supervised release with several special conditions and a $10,000 fine.
The PSR showed an extensive history of sexual deviance and prior offenses involving minors; the court adopted the PSR at sentencing.
Special Condition 1 broadly bans possession of material that is pornographic or depicts sexual activity or minors, and other conditions barred recreational computer use and restricted internet access (Conditions 3–5).
Lantz did not object to the special conditions at sentencing or on direct appeal; the government later objected to the imposition of any fine after the initial sentence.
The court initially found no ability to pay a fine, then, after the government’s objection, imposed a $10,000 fine and suggested further investigation of Lantz’s assets.
Lantz appeals, challenging the breadth of Condition 1 and the imposition of the fine, and seeking remand for resentencing consistent with the ruling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the terms banning depictions or allusions to sexual activity and depictions of minors overbroad?	Lantz argues Condition 1 is vague and overbroad.	Lantz's position is that the condition sweeps too broadly.	Both provisions are vacated as overbroad/plain error; the ban on all material that depicts or alludes to sexual activity and on material depicting minors is invalid.
Are the internet/computer restrictions under Conditions 3–5 permissible tailoring for Lantz's history?	Lantz contends they are overly broad and not properly tailored.	The government argues restrictions are reasonably related to deterrence and rehabilitation.	The court analyzes tailoring and declines to join a circuit-wide consensus; finds some restrictions acceptable given Lantz’s history, but vacates the overly broad portions of Condition 1 and remands.
Was the $10,000 fine imposed in violation of Rule 32 and the Sentencing Guidelines process?	Lantz argues the fine was improperly imposed given lack of evidence of ability to pay and procedural missteps.	The government argues the issue is ripe but does not advance a compelling rationale.	Procedural error established; the court vacates the fine and remands for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
Was the district court’s open-court explanation for the special conditions sufficient and compliant with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)?	Lantz contends the court failed to state in open court its reasons for the special conditions.	The government contends reasons may be inferred from the record and the sentence.	Any error deemed harmless; the record supports the rationale for the conditions, but the specific Rule 32 issues require remand on the fine.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Lee, 502 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2007) (ripeness of supervised-release conditions with potential future changes)
United States v. Massey, 349 F. App’x 64 (6th Cir. 2009) (unripe challenge to polygraph/plethysmograph and reporting obligations)
United States v. Carter, 463 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2006) (plain-error review and open-court statement requirements for sentence factors)
United States v. Demers, 634 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 2011) (upheld internet-access restriction with justification; tailored approach)
United States v. Phillips, 370 F. App’x 610 (6th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness of internet-restriction conditions related to public protection/rehabilitation)
United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128 (2d Cir. 2005) (upheld restriction prohibiting computer access with prior approval)
United States v. Brigham, 569 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2009) (absolute ban on computer/internet use is permissible in some cases)
United States v. Miller, 594 F.3d 172 (3d Cir. 2010) (struck down lifetime absolute computer/internet ban; distinctions based on conduct)
United States v. Voelker, 489 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2007) (overbreadth of internet access restrictions where not tailored to severity)