Repeatedly Violated Anti-Porn Condition Not Supported by Specific Evidence, Findings

US v. Castellano: Castellano was originally sentenced after convictions for possessing and transporting child pornography to a sentence that included, as a special condition of supervised release, a requirement that he “not have access to or possess any pornographic material or pictures displaying nudity or any magazines using juvenile models or pictures.” After his release from prison, Castellano’s supervised release was revoked, twice, for multiple violations, including violations of the anti-porn condition. During a third revocation (against based partly on violation of that condition), Castellano asked the district court to modify the anti-porn condition because it was vague, overbroad, and not tied to any compelling interest. The district court disagreed, referencing Castellano’s “unstable addiction and continued disrespect for terms of supervised release.”

On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit vacated Castellano’s sentence (including the 24-month term of imprisonment that was part of it), working through several procedural issues before addressing the merits of the anti-porn condition. First, the court concluded that by failing to challenge the timeliness of Castellano’s objection to the anti-porn condition at the revocation hearing, the Government had waived the argument. Second, the court concluded that the proper analytical frame was not whether the anti-porn condition was improperly imposed, but whether the district court improperly refused to modify it. Finally, the court concluded that it’s recent decisions in Van Donk and Ellis constituted changed legal circumstances that would support such a modification. Moving on to the merits, the court held that under Van Donk and Ellis the Government was required to produce individualized evidence supporting the condition and did not, relying on a compilation of academic literature that could support imposing the condition in every case. The court also noted the “broad sweep” of the condition and that it could preclude Castellano from going places like libraries, museums, gas stations and newsstands. The court also noted that Castellano’s repeated violations of the condition as applied could not support the district court’s decision not to modify it.

Judge Rushing dissented, arguing that there was sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not modifying the anti-porn condition.

Congrats to the Defender office in Easter Virginia on the win!