Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Before
Thompson, Baldock,* and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
LIPEZ,
Circuit
Judge.
Zairo
Ramos
and
three
co-
that same argument on appeal, along with a claim that the trial
judge deprived him of his right to call a key witness.
With respect to sentencing, Ramos contests the length of,
and justification for, his prison term, and challenges supervised
release conditions that generally forbid him from using a computer
or the internet without permission from his probation officer or
the court, and another supervised release condition that bars him
from having any "pornographic material."
After carefully considering the record, we affirm the
conviction and reject Ramos's challenges to his prison sentence.
However, we agree with Ramos that United States v. Perazza-Mercado,
553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009), requires us to vacate the internet,
computer, and pornography supervised release conditions.
Under
than
sentencing.
reasonably
necessary
to
achieve
the
goals
of
-2-
I.
In 2010, KMV,1 then 14, asked a friend of her mother's if
he knew anyone in their housing project who had a computer and
Internet access.2
check
social-networking
websites,
lounge
in
his
apartment
playing video games, and watch movies. She told investigators that
Vilanova and Rodrguez-Acevedo began to touch her during her visits
to the apartment. Other men also came to the apartment and engaged
in sexual acts with KMV.
In February 2011, a social worker in the housing project
learned of the sexual contact between KMV and Vilanova.
Other
photos,
along
with
various
VCR
and
DVD
The
KMV did not recall when in that two-month period the videos
were recorded. The district court informed jurors that the precise
date of recording was unknown, but that it fell within the twomonth period.
4
from the bench that there was a video camera visible in one of the
still images from the videos, and that it was "patently clear,
it's beyond any reasonable doubt, that everybody in that room knew
that they were being recorded, and that cameras were being used to
record."
Vilanova
recorded.
had
told
him
that
the
sex
acts
were
being
cross-examination,
lascivious acts.
and
local
charges
still
pending
for
properly invoked the Fifth Amendment. The jury found Ramos guilty,
and the court sentenced him to 188 months in prison and ten years
of post-release supervision. Included in the special conditions of
supervision were requirements that Ramos "shall not possess or use
a computer that contains an internal, external or wireless modem
without the prior approval of the Court," and that he "shall not
possess or use a computer, cellular telephone, or any other device
with internet accessing capability at any time and/or place without
prior approval from the probation officer."
unless
approved
by
the
probation
officer."
Ramos
objected only to the general ban on the use of computers and the
internet.
-6-
being recorded.6
see
if
"a
rational
factfinder
could
find
guilt
beyond
adequately
ground
conviction."
United
States
v.
The
a-half minutes. Ramos first appeared in that video after about two
minutes of recording. Video B, the second recording, was shot from
a different angle in the room.
Ramos
There is no
to being recorded a few minutes later, when Vilanova took the video
camera recording Video A and used it to scan around the room.
When
Video B continued,
She testified that she did not realize she was being
-9-
"would
start
signaling
themselves,"
indicating
that
the
with
Vilanova
that
the
cameras
were
recording,
and
It is not a
guilt.
III.
Ramos contends that the district court abrogated his
Sixth Amendment right to call and cross-examine witnesses when it
allowed Vilanova to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination.
precepts:
He
thus
"sets
in
tension
two
cardinal
"an
unfettered
right
offer
testimony
that
is
held
that
witness
may
invoke
the
Fifth
Thus we
Amendment
if
-11-
1983).
invocation
of
discretion.
A.
the
Fifth
Amendment
privilege
for
abuse
of
subpoenaed as a witness for the trial, and his attorney had argued
in pretrial filings that he faced a danger of self-incrimination if
he were to testify. Vilanova's attorney renewed this argument when
Ramos sought the voir dire, highlighting the fact that Vilanova had
entered a plea agreement to one count of aiding and abetting
production of child pornography with respect to KMV, and one count
of
production
of
child
pornography
involving
another
minor.
-12-
hundred
thousand
videos
that
Vilanova
recorded.9
His
of
the
the
district
Fifth
court's
Amendment
inquiry
privilege,
into
Vilanova's
the
prosecutor
there was also a risk "that transcends this case into local cases
without a doubt," and that there was further risk of information
that could change the sentence on the non-binding plea deal
"because of other conduct that I am not aware of."10
10
B.
Analysis
"[T]he convicted but unsentenced defendant retains a
marks
omitted).
Here,
nothing
in
Vilanova's
plea
agreement with the government would prevent the court from using
Vilanova's possible answers against him at sentencing, and there is
ample evidence that testimony from Vilanova particularly on a
cross-examination that might inquire about video-recording sexual
acts had a risk of linking him to other sex-related crimes.11
Thus it is clear that the district court did not abuse its
discretion
in
determining
that
Vilanova
had
real
fear
of
He contends
11
F.3d 226 (1st Cir. 1997), in which the panel wrote that the trial
court
"prudently
required
the
parties
to
proceed
in
Marchetti v. United
U.S. 479, 486-87 (1951). Assessing the danger that a witness faces
"is a determination for the court, not the witness, to make, and
[it] is subject to the discretion of the district court."
States v. Pratt, 913 F.2d 982, 990 (1st Cir. 1990).
United
In this
-16-
See Pratt, 913 F.2d at 990 (noting that the need for a
the court to take this step, and his argument ignores the practical
difficulties of such an approach.12
spur of the moment.
12
and
policy
statements,
calculate
the
offense
level,
criminal
sentencing
was
about
two-and-a-half
months
away.
the court to interrupt the trial and sentence Vilanova without the
benefit of a presentence report.13
13
We note that such a step would not have resolved the pending
local lascivious acts charges against Vilanova.
-18-
Cir. 2008).
A.
Procedural errors
Ramos claims two forms of procedural error:
failing to
are raised for the first time on appeal, our review is for plain
error.
14
Because
18 U.S.C. 3553(c)(1).
We have held
Id. at 647.
When there
error was clear and obvious; (3) the error affected the defendant's
substantial rights; and (4) the error impaired the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings."
United States v. Mangual-Garcia, 505 F.3d 1, 15 (1st Cir. 2007).
-20-
16
Right.
[Ramos's counsel]:
He's going to face
The Court:
He's an adult.
Yes.
I know.
17
See id.
Substantive unreasonableness
Ramos also attacks the substantive reasonableness of the
United States v.
thing."
18
United States v.
Zapata, 589 F.3d 475, 488 (1st Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
V.
Ramos objected at sentencing to limitations on his use of
a computer and his use of the internet during the ten-year term of
supervised release that would follow his prison term of fifteen
years and eight months.
Perazza-Mercado,
We review
Id. at 75.
access"
to
the
internet
approved" by probation.
"at
his
place
of
residence,
unless
-24-
officer,
thereby
covering
the
presentence
report's
either
from
probation
officer
or
the
court.19
Other
19
further restrict computer and internet use in the event that Ramos
is allowed to use a computer or the internet.21
The court gave its only justification for the computer
and internet conditions after Ramos's counsel objected to them.
Ramos's counsel contended that "the evidence at trial did not show
[he was] either using a computer or using the internet or using any
sort of device like that."
pornography ban.
21
B.
sentencing generally:
to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for
the offense," 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A); "to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct," id. 3553(a)(2)(B); "to protect
the
public
from
further
crimes
of
the
defendant,"
id.
3553(a)(2)(C); and the need "to provide the defendant with needed
educational
correctional
or
vocational
treatment
in
training,
the
most
medical
care,
effective
or
other
manner,"
id.
3553(a)(2)(D).
A
court
applies
18
U.S.C.
3583(d)
and
U.S.S.G
-27-
internet
to
view
child
pornography
or
contact
minors
inconsistent
with
Id. at 72 (internal
vocation
and
education
goals
of
Id. at 73.
There is ample
of
narrowly
tailored
tools
for
reaching
the
-28-
prohibition
which
real-world limitations."
would
Id. at 74.
essentially
replicate
these
crime,
and
has
not
used
the
internet
in
the
past
for
internet
ban
at
home
was
not
reasonably
related
to
the
Id. at 73.
22
To approve problematic
23
sometimes committed with the help of a computer does not mean that
the district court can restrict the Internet access of anyone
convicted of that offense."
233, 243 (D.C. Cir. 2010); cf. United States v. Peterson, 248 F.3d
79,
83
(2d
Cir.
2001)
("Although
defendant
might
use
the
that
telephones.").
includes
an
absolute
bar
on
the
use
of
24
or
computer,
and
he
did
not
have
history
of
Crume, 422 F.3d 728, 733 (8th Cir. 2005) (vacating ban on computer
and internet access where the offender did not use a computer or
the internet in his offense but the probation officer did have
discretion to relax the ban); United States v. Freeman, 316 F.3d
386, 391-92 (3d Cir. 2003) (same), with United States v. Love, 593
F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (affirming ban on internet access,
where offender sent child pornography online and where probation
officer would have discretion to relax the ban);
United States v.
Ristine, 335 F.3d 692, 696 (8th Cir. 2003) (same); United States v.
Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 621 (9th Cir. 2003) (same); United States v.
Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 117, 133-34 (same, where offender received
child pornography online).
computer
and
internet
use
simply
-32-
because
the
offense
of
conditions
of
supervised
release,
not
appellate
judges.").
The government labors to fill the void of justification
for the computer and internet restrictions.
Although the
internet
for
illegal
purposes,
such
as
viewing
child
The prosecutor
25
26
We thus vacate
sentencing,
the
district
court
added
special
that the court saw some unstated connection between viewing adult
pornography and the child pornography offenses here.
In that
may be a connection between that kind of conduct and the use of the
internet for other purposes which are also sexually oriented or in
that sense relate to the offense."
Perazza-Mercado
we
also
vacated,
on
plain-error
"A condition
with no basis in the record or with only the most tenuous basis,
will inevitably violate [18 U.S.C. ] 3585(d)(2)'s command that
such conditions involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is
reasonably necessary."
28
for the same reason.29 However, the district court may revisit this
issue at a resentencing limited to a reconsideration of the
pornography ban.
must explain its basis for doing so and its grounding in the
present or an expanded record.30
VI.
For the reasons stated, we affirm the conviction and
sentence of imprisonment, and vacate the additional terms of
supervised release numbered 9, 14, 17, and 18.
29