United States v. Mayo, No. 10-1970 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellant pleaded guilty to traveling in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. Appellant appealed from certain special conditions, contending that they were not reasonably related to the offense and resulted in a greater deprivation of liberty than was reasonably necessary. The court held that it was not plain error to impose special condition 4, which barred appellant from possessing pornography in any form, where it was reasonable to infer that curtailing appellant's access to pornographic materials would deter future criminal conduct and protect the public. The court also held that it was plain error to impose special condition 6, which barred appellant from possessing or accessing a class of objects, where the imposition affected his substantial rights and seriously affected the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings because it failed to provide sufficiently precise terms. The court further held that it was not plain error to impose special condition 7, which restricted appellant's access to the Internet if future employment necessitated use of a computer, where such a ban did not impose an absolute ban on Internet access and comported with precedent. Accordingly, the court affirmed special condition 4 and 7 and vacated special condition 6.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Supervised release conditions governing possession of pornography were related to the offense and would deter future criminal conduct and protect the public; provisions governing use of computers and "computer-enabling equipment" were not supported by the requisite individualized findings and were not narrowly tailored to advance the objectives of 18 U.S.C. sec. 3583(d), and are vacated; it was not error to restrict defendant's access to the Internet if future employment requires, but the provisions of the written condition must be conformed to the oral pronouncement of the condition; case remanded for further proceedings.
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.