United States v. Loflin

318 F. App'x 212
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 19, 2009
Docket08-4677
StatusUnpublished

This text of 318 F. App'x 212 (United States v. Loflin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Loflin, 318 F. App'x 212 (4th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

John William Loflin appeals a special condition of his supervised release regarding his sentence imposed on remand for resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). After reviewing the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), the district court resentenced Lof-lin to 144 months of imprisonment for his three convictions for traveling in interstate commerce to engage in a sexual act with a juvenile and his three convictions for transportation of a minor in interstate commerce with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity. The court also imposed a three-year term of supervised release.

The special condition to which Loflin objects regards limitations on his use of a computer at work. * We find no abuse of discretion by the district court in restricting Loflin’s computer usage at work. United States v. Holman, 532 F.3d 284, 288 (4th Cir.2008) (providing review standard). District courts have “broad latitude” with regard to special conditions of supervised release. United States v. Dotson, 324 F.3d 256, 260 (4th Cir.2003). The advisory Sentencing Guidelines recommend limitations of computer use for sex offenders where a computer or interactive computer service aided their crimes, U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 5D1.3(d)(7)(B), p.s. (2007), and allow conditions requiring unannounced and warrantless inspections and searches of computers and related equipment. See USSG § 5D1.3(d)(7)(C), p.s. Also, the Sentencing Guidelines permit occupational restrictions generally as a condition of supervised release. See USSG § 5D1.3(e)(4), p.s.

Accordingly, we affirm Loflin’s sentence and the special conditions of supervised release regarding limitations on his computer usage at work. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

*

The evidence at trial revealed Loflin used a computer to aid his crimes.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Robert Morris Dotson, Jr.
324 F.3d 256 (Fourth Circuit, 2003)
United States v. Holman
532 F.3d 284 (Fourth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
318 F. App'x 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-loflin-ca4-2009.