Tuesday, March 03, 2020

Remand for Failure to Adequately Explain Need for Special Supervised Release Conditions


US v. Arbaugh: Arbaugh pleaded guilty to traveling in foreign commerce to engage in illicit sexual activity, based on travels to Haiti during which he abused several young boys. At sentencing, the district court overruled Arbaugh’s objection to the imposition of a two-point enhancement for undue influence of a minor and calculated the advisory Guideline range to be 235 to 295 months in prison. The district court imposed a sentence of 276 months, after both Arbaugh and the Government argued for variances (in opposite directions). For Arbaugh’s lifetime term of supervised release the district court also imposed special conditions that he submit to warrants searches of his computer and related devices and prohibit him from owning encryption materials.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Arbaugh’s sentence of imprisonment, but vacated and remanded with regards to the special conditions of his term of supervised release. As to the imprisonment, the court first affirmed the application of the two-level enhancement, concluding that it was no double counting a factor already considered by the base Guideline, because it was focused on influence rather than age itself (although age, per the Guideline Commentary, is relevant to determining influence). The court also concluded that the district court provided a sufficient explanation for the sentence of imprisonment it imposed and that the sentence was substantively reasonable. As to the lifetime term of supervised release, however, while the court affirmed the length of the term, it held that the district court failed to adequately explain several of the special conditions it imposed. In particular, the court rejected the Government’s attempt to save the conditions by pointing to evidence in the record that supports them because that could not substitute for explanations from the district as to why it imposed the specific conditions at issue.

Congrats to the Defender office in the WDVA on the (partial) win!

No comments: