United States v. Velez-Luciano
814 F.3d 553
| 1st Cir. | 2016Background
- Vélez‑Luciano pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography; two production counts were dismissed. Plea included a 10‑year prison recommendation and an appellate‑waiver clause.
- PSR documented sexual abuse of two teenage females (one lived with him), use of pornography and internet communications to groom victims, and possession of explicit images produced by a victim.
- At sentencing the district court imposed 10 years imprisonment and 15 years supervised release with numerous special conditions (internet restrictions, pornography ban, limits on contact with minors, and sex‑offender treatment including PPG testing).
- Vélez‑Luciano appealed only the supervised‑release conditions; the government later disavowed seeking PPG testing.
- The appeal invoked the plea‑waiver doctrine; court applied a heightened review (miscarriage‑of‑justice exception), and plain‑error review where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of plea waiver | Waiver covered only prison term, not supervised‑release conditions | Waiver of “sentence” includes supervised release and conditions | Waiver covers supervised release and its conditions; appeal falls within waiver |
| Enforceability of waiver (knowing/voluntary) | Waiver not knowing because plea agreement didn’t list supervised‑release conditions | Plea colloquy and agreement referenced supervised release; defendant was informed | Waiver was knowing and voluntary under Ruiz; enforceable absent miscarriage of justice |
| Internet restrictions & pornography ban | Restrictions overbroad and indefinite | Internet/pornography were instrumental to grooming and offense; restrictions reasonable | Internet bans and categorical pornography ban upheld—record links internet/porn to offense; no miscarriage of justice |
| Minor‑contact and occupational restrictions | Conditions overbroad, impede livelihood and parent‑child relationships | Restrictions necessary: victims met through band/school; reasonable occupational nexus and public‑safety need | Conditions limiting contact with minors and restricting work with children upheld as justified; special constitutional concerns noted re: his own children but waived or insufficient to overcome waiver |
| Sex‑offender treatment (PPG testing) | PPG testing is highly invasive and not justified here | Government initially sought testing but later disavowed its utility for this defendant | Court vacated condition insofar as it authorizes PPG testing (miscarriage of justice + plain error); remanded for resentencing on that narrow issue |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Santiago, 769 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (waiver of appeal can cover supervised‑release conditions)
- United States v. Del Valle‑Cruz, 785 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2015) (limits on contact with minors and effect on defendant’s own children analyzed)
- United States v. Perazza‑Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (categorical pornography ban reversible when no record link between pornography and offense)
- United States v. Stergios, 659 F.3d 127 (1st Cir. 2011) (standards for imposing internet restrictions where internet was used in offense)
- Ruiz v. United States, 536 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2002) (waiver is knowing if defendant understands general nature and likely application of right)
- United States v. Medina, 779 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2015) (discussion of intrusive testing and sex‑offender conditions)
- United States v. Ramos, 763 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2014) (relation between pornography and offense supports restrictions)