United States v. Troy Fletcher, No. 10-3478 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Given the facts in this case involving a conviction on child pornography charges, the district court did not plainly err in imposing restrictions on defendant's access to the internet as part of the special conditions of his supervised release.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3478 ___________ United States of America, Appellee, v. Troy Wayne Fletcher, Appellant. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: October 14, 2011 Filed: October 18, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Troy Wayne Fletcher pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1), and failing to appear, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). The district court1 sentenced him to 288 months in prison, consisting of a 240-month term on the child-pornography offense and a consecutive 48-month term on the failure-to-appear offense. The court imposed a life term of supervised release, with several special conditions. 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Fletcher s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). After we reviewed the record independently pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we denied counsel s motion to withdraw and directed the parties to brief whether the district court erred in imposing a special condition of supervised release prohibiting Fletcher from having internet access at his residence, and from having--without prior approval by the probation office and a justified reason--access to an internet-connected computer or other device with internet capabilities or access to the internet from any location. After careful review of the record and the arguments advanced by both parties, we conclude that, given the particular facts of this case, the district court did not plainly err in imposing the special condition regarding internet access. See United States v. Koch, 625 F.3d 470, 481-82 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Durham, 618 F.3d 921, 943-45 (8th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Smith, No. 10-3579, 2011 WL 4104915, at *3 (8th Cir. Sept. 16, 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -2-
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.
