United States v. Scott Cascone

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 23, 2023
• Docket: 22-4467
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4467 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4467

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SCOTT A. CASCONE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (2:18-cr-00693-MBS-1)

Submitted: October 19, 2023 Decided: October 23, 2023

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Kimberly H. Albro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, Dean H. Secor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-4467 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Scott A. Cascone pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to production

of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), (e). The district court sentenced

Cascone to 300 months’ imprisonment, followed by a lifetime term of supervised release.

On appeal, Cascone argues one of the discretionary conditions of his supervised release is

substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

Generally, “[w]e review special conditions of supervision for abuse of discretion,

recognizing that district courts have broad latitude in this space.” United States v.

Castellano, 60 F.4th 217, 224 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). But

because Cascone did not object to the challenged condition before the district court, our

review is for plain error. See United States v. McMiller, 954 F.3d 670, 674 (4th Cir. 2020).

Thus, Cascone “must show that an error occurred, that it was plain, and that it affected his

substantial rights.” Id. If he makes such a showing, “we will exercise our discretion to

correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity[,] or public reputation of

judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

A district court “may impose any . . . condition it considers to be appropriate, as

long as that condition is reasonably related to statutory factors referred to in [18 U.S.C.]

§ 3583(d)(1).” United States v. Dotson, 324 F.3d 256, 260 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Those factors include “the nature and circumstances of the

offenses, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the statutory goals of

deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation.” United States v. Ellis, 984 F.3d

1092, 1098 (4th Cir. 2021). However, “[s]pecial conditions of supervision may restrict

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4467 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

only as much of a person’s liberty as reasonably necessary to further the purposes of

sentencing.” United States v. Cohen, 63 F.4th 250, 256 (4th Cir. 2023), petition for cert.

filed, No. 22-7818 (U.S. June 20, 2023). Although the district court is required “to provide

an individualized explanation for [a] condition’s broad sweep,” Castellano, 60 F.4th at 225

(cleaned up), “[t]he amount of explanation required will vary with the nature of the

condition imposed and the circumstances of each case,” United States v. Van Donk, 961

F.3d 314, 322 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here the district court imposed a condition of supervised release prohibiting

Cascone from possessing, accessing, subscribing to, or viewing “any videos, magazines,

literature, photographs, images, drawings, video games, or Internet websites depicting

child pornography or containing minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct as defined in

18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)” or possessing “any materials depicting and/or describing ‘child

pornography’ and/or ‘simulated child pornography’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256.” The

district court stated this condition was justified by the need to protect the public in light of

Cascone’s offense conduct, which involved enticing a 14-year-old child to produce

photographs depicting herself engaged in sexual activity; to deter Cascone from “potential

future crimes of a similar nature”; and to promote rehabilitation. In explaining the

sentence, the district court also emphasized that Cascone had been convicted in state court

of a prior production of child pornography offense and that, at the time of his arrest on the

instant offense, he was in possession of “[c]opious amounts of child pornography.” On

these facts, we conclude the district court did not plainly err by imposing the challenged

condition. See United States v. Sueiro, 59 F.4th 132, 144 (4th Cir. 2023) (holding district

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-4467 Doc: 32 Filed: 10/23/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

court did not abuse its discretion in imposing special condition that bore “a direct

relationship to [defendant’s] crimes of conviction”); United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792

F.3d 416, 425 (4th Cir. 2015) (“A court’s sentencing rationale . . . can support both

imprisonment and supervised release.”).

We therefore affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED