United States v. Todd Ellis
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10121
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Ellis pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §2252(a)(4)(B),(b)(2) and appeals several conditions of his supervised release.
- Evidence linked Ellis’s computer to downloaded child-pornography videos obtained during a lead from another investigation, after which agents obtained a search warrant and interviewed Ellis’s nephew, Brecheisen, who disclosed past molestation by Ellis on Ellis’s property.
- Brecheisen’s father corroborated the allegations; agents found dozens of videos/images on Ellis’s computer.
- The PSR notes Ellis’s background as a certified polysomograph technician and his reported childhood abuse without counseling; Brecheisen’s statements were included with limitations noted.
- At sentencing, the district court imposed a 120-month prison term and lifetime supervised release, along with seven supervised-release conditions; Ellis objected and timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the lifetime supervision conditions reasonably related to § 3553(a) and not greater than necessary? | Ellis argues the conditions are overly restrictive and not properly tied to statutory factors. | The government contends the conditions are reasonably related to offense characteristics and public protection. | No abuse of discretion; conditions reasonable and properly related. |
| Was the computer/internet restriction properly construed and enforceable as a supervised-release condition? | Ellis asserts an overly broad ban could sweep benign uses; argues for a narrower construction. | Restriction is standard in child-pornography cases and within commonsense understanding of computers. | Restriction upheld; commonsense construction governs and is consistent with precedent. |
| Is the “no contact with anyone under 18” condition, viewed as a general ban, unconstitutionally vague? | Ellis claims vagueness in prohibiting contact with minors without permitting incidental interactions. | District court allowed a permissive-contacts framework through later permissive provisions; vagueness not plain error. | Not plain error; district court did not commit plain error. |
| Are the no-access-to-areas/working near minors and related location-based restrictions reasonable? | Ellis contends no targeted evidence of public-minor encounters; argues broader impact. | Restrictions are reasonably necessary given offense nature and risk of recidivism. | Conditions upheld as reasonably related to prevention of future crimes. |
| Is the mental-health/psycho-physiological testing component ripe for review, and is it reasonably related? | Ellis asserts potential medication/testing could be coercive; not currently operative. | If ever invoked, modification procedures allow challenge; not ripe to review now. | Not ripe; modification procedures available; no immediate reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for supervised-release conditions; computer ban upheld in some contexts)
- United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2009) (preservation of error and plain-error review for release conditions)
- United States v. Alvarado, 691 F.3d 592 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard and Confrontation Clause considerations at sentencing)
- United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 2001) (relevance of § 3583(d)(1) factors; four-factor test for release conditions)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 558 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2009) (contact restrictions with minors tied to public safety interests)
- United States v. Buchanan, 485 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2007) (unsupervised contact with minors and permission considerations)
- United States v. Phipps, 319 F.3d 177 (5th Cir. 2003) (commonsense construction of sexually explicit-material restrictions)
- United States v. Rhodes, 552 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2009) (modification-possibilities for future medication/testing conditions)
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (district court deference in setting terms of supervised release)
- United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2009) (reasonableness of conditions must relate to statutory factors)
- United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2009) (empirical basis of Guidelines not a prerequisite for reasonableness presumption)