US v. Shawn Hise, No. 12-4810 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4810 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. SHAWN LYNN HISE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (5:12-cr-00007-MFU-1) Submitted: April 8, 2013 Decided: April 15, 2013 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Elizabeth G. Wright, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn Lynn Hise pleaded guilty to knowingly failing to register and update his sex offender registration, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2250 (West Supp. 2012). The district court sentenced Hise to twenty-seven months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. The court also imposed several special conditions of supervised release that prohibited Hise from (1) residing with or visiting residences with minor children without (2) obtaining his employment probation or officer s volunteering in permission; positions that require contact with minor children without the permission of his probation officer; (3) loitering near areas where children normally congregate; and (4) possessing or viewing pornography depicting minors or actors portraying minors. the imposition release. of these enumerated Hise appeals from conditions of supervised For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Hise argues on appeal that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the three conditions restricting his contact with minor children. district court failed to In addition, Hise argues that the offer an adequate explanation for imposition of the prohibition related to his possession of child pornography. A sentencing court may impose any condition that is reasonably related to the relevant 2 statutory sentencing factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for deterrence and protecting the public from future crimes, and providing the defendant with training or United treatment. States v. Worley, 685 F.3d 404, 407 (4th Cir. 2012); see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). not require an While [a] particular restriction does offense-specific nexus, . . . the sentencing court must adequately explain its decision and its reasons for imposing it. omitted). Id. (internal District conditions on courts supervised quotation have release, marks broad and conditions only for abuse of discretion. and citations latitude so we Id. to review reviewed the record and the such (quoting United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009)). thoroughly impose We have relevant legal authorities and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the restrictions on Hise s contact with minor children, and adequately explained the final condition prohibiting Hise from possessing child pornography. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
