Conviction and sentence for receiving child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant as its analysis under 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553(a) was informed and adequate, and the sentence was reasonable; 2) the court did not err in imposing a special condition of supervised release of barring defendant from sexually explicit materials as there is a significant nexus between restricting defendant from access to adult sexually explicit material and the goals of supervised release, and the restriction is not overbroad or vague; and 3) the court did not err in imposing the special condition of supervised release of restricting defendant’s access to computers and internet use as the restriction shares a nexus to the goals of deterrence and protection of the public, and does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is necessary.
Read US v. Thielemann, No. 08-2335
Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.Argued May 20, 3009Decided August 3, 2009
JudgesBefore: RENDELL and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and VANASKIE, District Judge.Opinion by GARTH, Circuit Judge.
CounselFor Appellant: LARRICK B. STAPLETON, Ardmore, PA.
For Appellee: EDMOND FALGOWSKI, Office of the United States Attorney, Wilmington, DE.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
