United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 12-1801
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ZAIRO RAMOS,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. José A. Fusté, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Thompson, Baldock,* and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
Steven A. Feldman for appellant.
Nelson Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief,
Appellate Division, with whom Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United
States Attorney, was on brief, for appellee.
August 13, 2014
*
Of the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Zairo Ramos and three co-
defendants were recorded on video engaging in sex acts with a
fourteen-year-old girl. In defending at trial against a charge of
aiding and abetting the production of child pornography, Ramos
claimed unsuccessfully that he did not know the acts were being
recorded. Invoking the insufficiency of the evidence, he presses
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
Perazza-Mercado, these conditions are not reasonably related to
Ramos's characteristics and history, and thus deprive him of more
liberty than reasonably necessary to achieve the goals of
sentencing. There remain several narrower computer and internet
restrictions that Ramos did not challenge on appeal.
-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 KMV had known her mother's friend, Félix Iván
Rodríguez-Acevedo, since she was seven or eight and considered him
"like my uncle." Rodríguez-Acevedo introduced KMV to Rey Vilanova-
Delgado ("Vilanova"), a resident on another floor of her building.
Through this introduction, KMV was able to use Vilanova's computer
to check social-networking websites, lounge in his apartment
playing video games, and watch movies. She told investigators that
Vilanova and Rodríguez-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
neighbors had heard this rumor as well; they reacted by beating
Vilanova with a baseball bat. While Vilanova recovered in the
hospital, his mother turned over to the social worker a box of
sexually-explicit photos, along with various VCR and DVD
recordings. Investigators from the cyber crimes unit of the
1
Though KMV was identified often by name in the trial, we
refer to her by her initials.
2
We recount the essential facts in the light most favorable
to the jury's verdict, see, e.g., United States v. Polanco, 634
F.3d 39, 40 (1st Cir. 2011), with further factual recitation as
necessary in the analysis.
-3-
Department of Homeland Security interviewed Vilanova, and they
searched some of his electronic devices after he signed a form
consenting to the searches.
Among the recordings turned over to police were three
videos, shot from different angles, of an incident in May or June
of 2010.3 In the videos, Ramos and co-defendants Rodríguez-
Acevedo, Vilanova, and Félix Javier González-Morales, engaged in
sex acts with KMV. Count 1 of a superseding indictment alleged
that Ramos, "while aiding and abetting" the three co-defendants in
the video, "did employ, use, persuade, induce, entice or coerce"
KMV to engage in "the lascivious exhibition of the genital areas"
and the performance of "sexual acts, for the purpose of producing
a visual depiction," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).4 The
3
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 two-
month period.
4
Other counts charged Vilanova and Rodríguez-Acevedo with
aiding and abetting child pornography by taking still photographs
of KMV (Count 2); Vilanova and a fifth defendant, Roberto
Encarnación-Ruiz, with aiding and abetting child pornography in
different video of sexual activity with KMV (Count 3); Vilanova
with production of child pornography for videotaping sexual
activity with another minor in a separate incident (Count 4); and
Vilanova and Gonzáles-Morales with possession of child pornography
(Count 5 as to Vilanova, Count 6 as to Gonzáles-Morales). The co-
defendants all reached plea agreements and were sentenced to prison
terms of 210 months for Vilanova and 180 months each for Rodríguez-
Acevedo, Gonzáles-Morales, and Encarnación-Ruiz. Encarnación-
Ruiz's plea agreement allowed him to appeal the issue of whether a
defense of mistake of age must be available for a defendant charged
with aiding and abetting the production of child pornography under
18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). That appeal is pending, and that argument is
-4-
aiding and abetting statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2, provides that a
defendant "is punishable as a principal" if he "aids, abets,
counsels, commands, induces or procures" the commission of a
federal crime.
At trial, Ramos conceded that he was depicted engaging in
sexual acts with KMV, such as receiving oral sex, but contended
that he did not know he was being filmed, and thus he could not
have aided and abetted the crime of producing child pornography.
The jury instructions, which are not challenged on appeal, told
jurors to consider whether "the defendant was aware that recording,
video recording, photographing, was taking place during the sexual
conduct."5
At the close of the prosecution's case, Ramos moved for
a judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
29. The district court denied the motion, noting in its ruling
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."
not at issue in Ramos's appeal.
5
The court further instructed the jury that it could infer
Ramos knew of the recording if he was "aware of a high probability"
that the incident was being recorded on video, and he "consciously
and deliberately avoided learning of that fact."
-5-
Ramos then sought to call Vilanova as a witness to ask
whether Vilanova had told him that the sex acts were being
recorded. Vilanova asserted his Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination, citing the pending sentencing on his plea deal
in the case, possible incriminating answers that might be elicited
on cross-examination, and local charges still pending for
lascivious acts. The district court held that Vilanova had
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." Further, the court
added a condition that Ramos "will not possess any pornographic
material, unless approved by the probation officer." Ramos
objected only to the general ban on the use of computers and the
internet. He followed with this timely appeal, which includes a
challenge to the ban on the possession of pornographic material.
II.
We review de novo Ramos's preserved claim that there was
insufficient evidence that he knew the sexual conduct with KMV was
-6-
being recorded.6 Our task is to evaluate the evidence "in the
light most favorable to the prosecution," United States v. Jones,
674 F.3d 88, 91 (1st Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted)
to see if "a rational factfinder could find guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt," id. We do not re-weigh the evidence or take up
the jury's credibility determinations, United States v. Polanco,
634 F.3d 39, 45 (1st Cir. 2011), nor do we place a "premium" on
"direct as opposed to circumstantial evidence; both types of proof
can adequately ground a conviction." United States v.
Cortés–Cabán, 691 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
mark omitted).
Ramos's argument at trial and on appeal is largely the
same: he protested twice in the videos when it appeared someone
was recording or photographing him, and it "defies logic" that
someone who so strenuously objected knew there was a camera
recording. He characterizes the government's case as a mere
"patchwork of surmises and guesses" about the video recordings.
His argument fails.
Three overlapping videos, capturing about forty-six-and-
a-half minutes of relevant content, were introduced at trial. The
first video, referred to at trial as Video A, was thirty-three-and-
6
As noted, Ramos moved for a judgment of acquittal after the
government's case. Because he did not put on any evidence in his
defense, he did not have to renew his motion to preserve the issue.
United States v. Hernández, 218 F.3d 58, 63 n.3 (1st Cir. 2000).
-7-
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. It overlapped with most of the
content of Video A, and continued recording after the camera
filming Video A was turned off.7 Ramos was in the bathroom with
KMV when Vilanova turned on the camera for Video B, according to
trial testimony from investigator Rosa Robles Carrasquillo. Ramos
argued at trial that the beginning of videos A and B do not
indicate that he saw the cameras being turned on; further, he
argued that there was no testimony that the cameras made noise or
had recording lights to alert him that they were on.
The final recording, Video C, was thirty seconds long. It
was recorded at the end of the forty-six minutes of content shown
at trial, and showed Ramos at the end of the bed, dressing KMV. The
video zoomed in and out on KMV's breasts. Investigator Robles, who
was familiar with the layout of the apartment, testified that from
the angle of the camera it appeared that the person holding it was
on the bed, within a few feet of Ramos and KMV. There is no
indication in Video C that Ramos said anything in response to being
recorded.
About twenty-nine minutes into the recorded content,
Vilanova could be seen taking still photographs of a naked KMV.
7
After Video A ended, Video B recorded about thirteen more
minutes of content shown at trial. The camera continued to record
for about fifty more minutes, after the group was clothed.
-8-
About a minute later, KMV grabbed a camera and began to use it to
take photos of the men. When she attempted to take Ramos's photo,
he said "no, not me" in Spanish. Ramos also commented in response
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
he did so, he zoomed in on KMV's vagina, then focused on Ramos.
Someone in the video commented that Ramos was covering himself up
in response to the camera, to which Ramos replied in Spanish that
he was not covering himself, "it's that this motherfucker is
recording." Video A then stopped recording. Video B continued,
capturing Ramos, Rodríguez-Acevedo, and KMV as they later danced
together on the bed naked. Seeing these videos, the jurors could
easily have concluded that Ramos's purported protests showed simply
that he did not want to be the focus of attention in a video that
showed him committing a federal crime.
KMV's testimony provides further support for the jury
verdict. She testified that she did not realize she was being
recorded on video until "almost at the end," when Vilanova grabbed
the video camera for Video A and tried to record Ramos, prompting
Ramos to swear. While Ramos argues that "the cameras could not be
so obvious to everyone — otherwise the victim herself would have
seen them," there is ample evidence from which a jury could
conclude that the defendants knew more about the cameras than KMV
did. For example, KMV testified that, before the sexual contact,
-9-
Ramos and others "would go to one side to talk among themselves,"
and "would start signaling themselves," indicating that the
subsequent recording was part of a plan.
As the district court noted, there were gestures from
Ramos and others in the video that, according to the government,
revealed an awareness that cameras were on. For example, the
government contended that in one series of gestures, Ramos was
checking with Vilanova that the cameras were recording, and
Vilanova confirmed and looked briefly at the camera recording Video
A. The government asked the jury, as the factfinder, to interpret
Ramos "pointing to the camera and laughing" during the exchange as
circumstantial proof of knowledge. Ramos's counterargument — that
Ramos was actually pointing at Vilanova and laughing — is simply an
argument that the jury could consider and reject. It is not a
reason to hold that no reasonable jury could have found Ramos
guilty.8 In sum, we see no reason to disturb the jury's finding of
guilt.
8
There also was a visible camera in a still image from one of
the videos. Ramos contended that the camera seen in the still
image was not one of the cameras that was recording. Even assuming
Ramos is correct, the various cameras shown in the videos — such as
the camera KMV and Vilanova used for still photos and the camera
Vilanova grabbed that was recording Video A — support the
government's theory that Ramos and the other co-defendants knew
they were recording.
-10-
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. He thus "sets in tension two cardinal
precepts: that a criminal defendant should have full opportunity
to secure evidence in his own defense, and that a witness should be
protected against being compelled to provide testimony that may
incriminate him." United States v. De La Cruz, 996 F.2d 1307, 1312
(1st Cir. 1993). A defendant's right "'to offer the testimony of
witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in
plain terms the right to present a defense,'" and such a right is
"'a fundamental element of due process of law.'" United States v.
Gary, 74 F.3d 304, 308 (1st Cir. 1996) (quoting Washington v.
Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967)). But the Sixth Amendment does not
provide "an unfettered right to offer testimony that is
incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard
rules of evidence." Id. at 308-09 (quoting Taylor v. Illinois, 484
U.S. 400, 410 (1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus we
have held that a witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment if
testifying might incriminate him on direct or cross-examination,
despite a defendant's Sixth Amendment interests in presenting that
testimony. See, e.g., Gary, 74 F.3d at 309; De La Cruz, 996 F.3d
at 1312-13; United States v. Zirpolo, 704 F.2d 23, 25 (1st Cir.
-11-
1983). An appellate court reviews favorable rulings on this
invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege for abuse of
discretion. See Gary, 74 F.3d at 310.
A. The court's inquiry
After the close of the prosecution's case, Ramos sought
to conduct a voir dire, without the jury present, to ask Vilanova
whether he had told Ramos he was recording. Vilanova had been
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.
Awaiting sentencing by Judge Fusté, Vilanova contended that his
answers on the witness stand, and potential cross-examination,
could lead the court to choose a sentence longer than the seventeen
years recommended in the parties' non-binding plea agreement.
Vilanova also anticipated that the government might inquire about
other acts on cross-examination, depending on his testimony about
what he told Ramos about the recording. Vilanova's counsel pressed
one additional concern, a pending "lascivious acts" case in Puerto
Rico's local courts.
-12-
There was good reason for Vilanova's attorney to worry
about the consequences for her client if he testified at Ramos's
trial. The plea agreement's factual recitation indicated there
were other times in which Vilanova participated in sex acts
recorded with KMV ("[He] also admitted to having photographed and
videotaped himself and others charged in the Superseding Indictment
engaging in sexual intercourse with 'KMV' on different dates"
(emphasis added)). The recitation further stated that there were
between seven and ten videos found by investigators of Vilanova
engaging in sex acts with another minor. Special Agent Vanessa
Blanco had testified briefly about these videos at Ramos's trial,
stating that the other minor never knew she was being recorded.
Vilanova had also turned over computer hard drives during
the investigation with what a forensic analyst testified was about
one hundred thousand videos that Vilanova recorded.9 His
collection of images of child pornography included scenes of
bestiality.
In the district court's inquiry into Vilanova's
invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, the prosecutor
provided a specific example of a potential subject of impeachment.
If Vilanova testified that he did not tell Ramos he was recording
and that he thought Ramos did not know about the cameras, the
9
Vilanova had a habit of recording all aspects of his life,
according to testimony from the investigators.
-13-
prosecutor stated that he would then pursue a cross-examination
based on the obvious signs that cameras were recording. Vilanova's
attorney characterized this hypothetical as deeply harmful for her
client at sentencing:
If my client stands here, okay, and says 'No, I did not
tell Mr. Zairo [Ramos] that he was being recorded, the
Court has already said that the Court understands that
that is obvious [that everyone knew they were being
recorded]. What credibility will my client have?
After further probing by the court, it thought that this
concern had merit: "The more I think about it, there is a good
possibility . . . that Rey Vilanova, out of ignorance, out of
loyalty . . . to the defendant on trial, out of fear, out of
whatever reason, may screw up badly if he testifies." If this were
to happen, the court noted, "I may give him an adjustment [at his
sentencing] for obstruction of justice." The court added that
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
Vilanova's counsel provided further details to the court in
an ex parte proffer that was then sealed. Because the proffer was
not transcribed and included in the record on appeal, see Fed. R.
App. P. 10(a)-(b), we analyze the issue only on the available
record.
-14-
B. Analysis
"[T]he convicted but unsentenced defendant retains a
legitimate protectable Fifth Amendment interest as to matters that
could affect his sentence." De La Cruz, 996 F.2d at 1312 (internal
quotation 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 a real fear of
worsening his chances for a lenient sentence, admitting to other
misconduct, or incriminating himself with respect to the lascivious
acts case pending in local courts.
Ramos's counterarguments are unconvincing. He contends
that the court's failure to do a question-and-answer voir dire of
Vilanova is reversible error. Ramos casts the district court's
actions as allowing Vilanova to invoke "the Fifth Amendment on a
wholesale scale," and "fail[ing] to either make a particularized
11
In some circumstances, a trial judge may be able to
"reconcile the defendant's right to present witnesses with a
witness's privilege against self-incrimination by limiting the
scope of the latter's testimony." Zirpolo, 704 F.2d at 26. Ramos
does not argue on appeal that such a step was possible. Thus our
focus is on his general claim that the district court erred in its
analysis of Vilanova's potential for self-incrimination.
-15-
finding as to the applicability of the privilege or set forth its
rationale." For support, Ramos cites United States v. Castro, 129
F.3d 226 (1st Cir. 1997), in which the panel wrote that the trial
court "prudently required the parties to proceed in a
question-and-answer format," id. at 228, and that the trial court
"should make a particularized finding as to the applicability vel
non of the privilege and should elucidate its rationale," id. at
230.
A district court inquires into the reasons a witness is
claiming the Fifth Amendment privilege to verify that the witness
is not invoking the privilege "on a blanket basis," id. at 229, and
does in fact face "substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling
or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." Marchetti v. United
States, 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968) (quoting Rogers v. United States,
340 U.S. 367, 374 (1951)). "To sustain the privilege, it need only
be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in
which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an
explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because
injurious disclosure could result." Hoffman v. United States, 341
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." United
States v. Pratt, 913 F.2d 982, 990 (1st Cir. 1990). In this
inquiry, the court "must be governed as much by . . . personal
-16-
perception of the peculiarities of the case as by the facts
actually in evidence." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 487 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Thus it is crucial for a district court to inform its
discretion through appropriate inquiries, particularly when the
defendant's right to put on a defense is in tension with the Fifth
Amendment privilege. There are various ways for a district court
to properly inform itself of the nature of the Fifth Amendment
claim. See Pratt, 913 F.2d at 990 (noting that the need for a
particularized inquiry is "only a general rule"). Ramos's argument
that a question-and-answer format is legally required elevates the
form of the inquiry over its substance. Here it is clear that the
district court carefully assessed the Fifth Amendment claim and
informed its discretion appropriately.
Ramos next contends that if Vilanova's pending sentencing
kept alive his Fifth Amendment interest, the trial court "could
have simply and easily ordered a brief adjournment," sentenced
Vilanova, "and then reconvened Ramos's trial." Ramos never asked
the court to take this step, and his argument ignores the practical
difficulties of such an approach.12 Sentencing is not done on the
spur of the moment. In the usual sentencing scenario, a probation
officer must first identify all applicable Sentencing Guidelines
12
Vilanova's counsel actually suggested this step, but the
court rejected it as "not a realistic argument," and Ramos's trial
counsel offered no opinion on the issue.
-17-
and policy statements, calculate the offense level, criminal
history, and available sentencing ranges, and identify relevant
factors that might guide the sentencing. See Fed. R. Crim.
P. 32(d)(1)-(2). The result of this investigation is a presentence
report given to the defendant, the defendant's attorney, and the
government at least thirty-five days before sentencing (though the
defendant may waive this deadline). Id. at 32(e)(2). Both Federal
Rule 32 and Local Rule 132 provide for further deadlines to provide
all sides with adequate notice, including a deadline of fourteen
days from the disclosure of the presentence report for any written
objections to that report.
At the time Ramos sought to call Vilanova as a witness,
Vilanova's sentencing was about two-and-a-half months away.
Vilanova had reached a plea agreement that left certain important
details subject to further investigation, such as the calculation
of his criminal history. It would thus have been impractical for
the court to interrupt the trial and sentence Vilanova without the
benefit of a presentence report.13 Not surprisingly, Ramos offers
no authority for such an obligation, and we see no reason to impose
one. See United States v. Rivas-Macias, 537 F.3d 1271, 1281 (10th
Cir. 2008) ("Defendant cites no authority, and we have found none,
suggesting a district court is required, sua sponte, to continue a
13
We note that such a step would not have resolved the pending
local lascivious acts charges against Vilanova.
-18-
defendant's trial until a witness invoking the Fifth Amendment
privilege has been sentenced.").14
IV.
Ramos claims that the district court did not adequately
explain the reasons for its sentence, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), and
that it should have chosen a lower sentence given Ramos's "limited
role in the offense" and his difficult upbringing. He asserts that
the 188-month sentence was "both unreasonable and even draconian."
We review the imposed sentence in a two-step process,
examining it first for procedural errors, and then for substantive
unreasonableness. United States v. Politano, 522 F.3d 69, 72 (1st
Cir. 2008).
A. Procedural errors
Ramos claims two forms of procedural error: failing to
explain the reasons for the sentence, and failing to adequately
consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Because these arguments
are raised for the first time on appeal, our review is for plain
error. See United States v. Rivera-Gonzalez, 626 F.3d 639, 646
(1st Cir. 2010).15
14
Ramos casts as a separate argument a claim that Vilanova
could have benefitted himself by testifying honestly and accepting
responsibility, and that the trial court was unlikely to punish him
for any testimony. We read this as an argument that Vilanova did
not face a substantial danger of self-incrimination. We have
already rejected this argument.
15
"To vacate a sentence under plain error review, four
prerequisites must be established: (1) an error occurred; (2) the
-19-
Section 3553(c) requires the district court to "state in
open court the reasons for its imposition of [a] particular
sentence." Here the court's sentencing guidelines calculation — a
total offense level of thirty-six, and a criminal history category
of I — yielded an imprisonment range of 188 to 235 months. Because
this range is greater than twenty-four months, the district court
had to state the "reason for imposing a sentence at a particular
point within the range." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(1). We have held
that an explanation is adequate under § 3553(c)(1) if it notes
"some discrete aspect of the defendant's behavior" and ties that
aspect to the goals of sentencing. Rivera-Gonzalez, 626 F.3d at
646-47 (quoting United States v. Vazquez-Molina, 389 F.3d 54, 58
(1st Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds, 544 U.S. 946 (2005)).
A sentencing court is required to consider relevant § 3553(a)
factors, but need not address each one. Id. at 647. When there
are gaps in the explanation for a particular sentence, "a court's
reasoning can often be inferred by comparing what was argued by the
parties or contained in the pre-sentence report with what the judge
did." United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514, 519 (1st Cir.
2006).
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-
Here, we can compare the presentence investigation report
and the sentencing transcript to understand the district court's
reasoning behind its sentence. The presentence report contained
this paragraph explaining that the characteristics of the offense,
and particularly the vulnerability of the victim, could justify a
higher sentence:
The Court could consider that the victim was a
troubled child who lacked the guidance and protection
from both parents. At the time of the offense, the
victim was in fourth grade which leads us to believe she
might have failed in school as a result of negligence or
as a result of a learning disability. Her poor socio-
economic status, her relationship with defendant
[Rodríguez-Acevedo] . . . and the lack of supervision
placed her in a vulnerable position. The defendants . .
. took advantage of her ignorance and used her for their
personal gratification. Furthermore, the defendant has
no empathy for the victim and even blames her.
The next paragraph outlined mitigating factors with respect to
Ramos's troubled upbringing that "might have negatively impact[ed]
him and his judgment."16 At sentencing, the court and Ramos's
counsel had this exchange, which drew on both paragraphs in the
presentence report about aggravating and mitigating factors:
The Court: Thinking of the victim, a troubled child,
lack of guidance, lack of parents' control, very poor
academic development and achievement, probably social and
learning disabilities, poor socioeconomic status —
16
According to the presentence report, Ramos's father was a
heroin addict and his mother died when he was a teenager. When he
was 20, his father died while incarcerated, after having been
arrested in a federal drug case. His brother, also arrested in the
federal case, later died in a car accident.
-21-
[Ramos's counsel]: That also applies to my client,
Your Honor, in the next paragraph.
The Court: Right. He's an adult.
[Ramos's counsel]: Yes. And that's why he's here.
He's going to face —
The Court: I know.
[Ramos's counsel]: — a very, very long sentence,
Your Honor.
After that exchange, the court stated that it would "do what we did
with the other two [co-defendants]" and "use the lower end of the
guidelines." At the time, co-defendants Rodríguez-Acevedo and
Vilanova had been sentenced to 210 and 180 months respectively,
while Gonzáles-Morales, the fourth co-defendant appearing in the
videos with Ramos, was awaiting sentencing.
The court's comments, in the context of the parties's
arguments and the presentence report, offer several reasons for the
chosen sentence. The court considered the nature and seriousness
of the offense by highlighting various ways that the victim was
vulnerable, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)&(2), it acknowledged the
defendant's claim of his own troubled upbringing, see id. at
(a)(1), and it returned to a fundamental distinction between
offender and victim — "He's an adult" — to justify a sentence at
the low end of the recommended range.17 Further, the court noted
17
The court also heard from Ramos's counsel at sentencing
about his acceptance of responsibility, and his contention that he
had a lesser role. It responded to the latter argument, noting
that "there is no such thing as better or worse in this kind of
-22-
that in doing so it was treating Ramos in a similar fashion to
other co-defendants on the videos who had pleaded guilty. See id.
at (a)(6).18 We see no procedural mistake in the district court's
explanation under the applicable plain-error review standard.
Indeed, even if Ramos had timely objected and thus preserved the
issue for closer scrutiny, we would still find no error.
B. Substantive unreasonableness
Ramos also attacks the substantive reasonableness of the
sentence, arguing that he had a "difficult background and limited
role in the offense," and the court never considered "a sentence
that was sufficient, but not greater than necessary," 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). He reiterates that he did not know he was being
recorded, that there was no evidence he sought to retain or
distribute the recordings, and that, unlike Vilanova, he did not
possess any child pornography.
A district court has wide discretion in its sentencing
decisions. The "linchpin of a reasonable sentence is a plausible
sentencing rationale and a defensible result." United States v.
Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 96 (1st Cir. 2008). Here, Ramos's argument
thing."
18
The desire to avoid unwarranted disparities among the case's
co-defendants was also discussed at a sidebar off the record. When
back on the record, the court stated that the purpose of that
sidebar discussion was "to achieve some sort of consistency between
the [defendant's and co-defendants'] sentences. And I decided the
best way to do it is the lower end of the guidelines in all three
cases."
-23-
about his lack of knowledge of the recording is at odds with what
we have already held was a sufficiently supported jury verdict.
His arguments for leniency based on his background, and on his
lesser involvement when compared to Vilanova, "may be well-founded,
but they are ultimately unavailing" because district courts have
the latitude to "emphasize the nature of the crime over the
mitigating factors," and such a "choice of emphasis . . . is not a
basis for a founded claim of sentencing error." 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. Because he preserved the issue, we review
his arguments on appeal for abuse of discretion. Perazza-Mercado,
553 F.3d at 69.
Ramos also raises on appeal a new argument that the
court's prohibition on all pornography must be vacated. We review
that claim for plain error. Id. at 75.
A. The district court sentencing
Ramos's presentence report recommended that he "not have
access" to the internet "at his place of residence, unless
approved" by probation. This condition appears to have been
-24-
redundant in light of a second, broader condition proposed in the
report that Ramos "shall not possess or use a computer, cellular
telephone, or any other device with internet accessing capability,
at any time or place without prior approval from the probation
officer."
At sentencing, the district court imposed the proposed
ban on possessing or using a computer, cell phone, or other device
that can access the internet without prior approval from the
probation officer, thereby covering the presentence report's
proposed general ban on internet access at home. The court also
added two conditions that ban using or possessing computers without
court approval, thereby suggesting that approval of such uses could
come either from a probation officer or the court.19 Other
conditions that are not challenged on appeal restrict Ramos's
ability to be near minors,20 provide for sex offender treatment, and
19
Specifically, condition 17 barred possessing or using a
computer that contains "an internal, external, or wireless modem"
without prior court approval, and condition 18 barred "possessing
or us[ing] any computer" without prior court approval in connection
with authorized employment. It would appear that the computer and
internet bans in these three imposed conditions — the one adopted
from the presentence report and the two added at sentencing — could
have been boiled down to one condition: a ban on possessing or
using any computer, or possessing or using any device with the
ability to access the internet, unless approved by a probation
officer or the court.
20
These include a ban on Ramos working with children and a
requirement that he not reside or loiter within 1,000 feet of any
area or event frequented by minors.
-25-
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." The court replied:
It's that when you commit this kind of offense and
the offense involves minors, usually reasonable people
think that there 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 type of offense. And that's why those conditions
are in there.
Of course . . . let's suppose he gets a job and he's
going to work in a commercial establishment or something.
All that can be arranged. But the condition has to be
around. There's no question about it.
The court also added a further condition, not mentioned
in the presentence report, that Ramos "will not possess any
pornographic material unless approved by the probation officer,
which of course they won't." Ramos's attorney did not object to
this condition. The court did not explain its reasoning for the
pornography ban.
21
Ramos must consent to computer monitoring and filtering
systems on any computer he owns or controls; to searches of any
computer equipment; and to searches of any other electronic or
data-storage devices upon reasonable suspicion. Also, if Ramos
were permitted to use the internet at some point, he would have to
keep a daily log of all websites he accessed for reasons outside of
authorized employment, and to make such a log available to his
probation officer.
-26-
B. The internet and computer-use conditions
The purposes of supervised release mirror the purposes of
sentencing generally: "to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
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 or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner," id.
§ 3553(a)(2)(D).
A court applies 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and U.S.S.G
§ 5D1.3(b) to review special conditions. This statute and section
of the sentencing guidelines require "that special conditions cause
'no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary' to
achieve the goals of supervised release," and "that the conditions
be 'reasonably related' both to these goals and to the 'nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
the defendant,'" Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d at 69 (quoting 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(d)(1)-(2)). See also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).
In Perazza-Mercado, we reviewed a special condition that
barred the defendant from using the internet at home during his
fifteen years of supervised release. The defendant, convicted of
unlawful sexual contact with a minor, had no history of using the
-27-
internet to view child pornography or contact minors
inappropriately, and did not use the internet in committing his
crime. He thus contended that such a ban would not advance the
sentencing goals of deterrence or protecting the public, and
instead would unnecessarily harm his ability to use the internet
for purposes related to rehabilitation. 553 F.3d at 70.
In our analysis, we noted that "an undue restriction on
internet use renders modern life — in which, for example, the
government strongly encourages taxpayers to file their returns
electronically, where more and more commerce is conducted on-line,
and where vast amounts of government information are communicated
via website — exceptionally difficult." Id. at 72 (internal
quotation marks omitted). A total ban on internet use at home was
thus inconsistent with the vocation and education goals of
supervised release. It prevented, for example, such vital tasks as
looking for job postings when at home. We were also mindful that
a defendant's supervised release conditions only take effect after
completion of the prison sentence. Id. at 73. There is ample
reason to believe that it will become harder and harder in the
future for an offender to rebuild his life when disconnected from
the internet at home.
Our opinion in Perazza-Mercado further relied on the
availability of narrowly tailored tools for reaching the
appropriate balance between monitoring an offender in order to
-28-
protect the public, while still allowing him some reasonable
internet access. Just as conditions forbid a defendant from
working with children as part of his job, or living or loitering
near areas whether children gather, "modern technology permits[] an
internet prohibition which would essentially replicate these
real-world limitations." Id. at 74. Modern monitoring techniques
include software installed on a computer to track usage, as well as
relying on data from a user's internet service provider. These are
important tools for a court to consider for an offender who, as we
noted repeatedly in Perazza-Mercado, did not use the internet for
his crime, and has not used the internet in the past for
impermissible purposes, such as viewing child pornography, or
contacting minors inappropriately. Given the absence of those
concerns, the importance of the internet to daily life, and the
availability of narrowly tailored monitoring tools, we agreed that
the internet ban at home was not reasonably related to the
defendant's personal characteristics or offense of conviction, and
caused a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary for the
goals of supervised release.22 Id. at 73.
22
Circuit courts have affirmed broad supervised-release
restrictions on internet access when "(1) the defendant used the
internet in the underlying offense; (2) the defendant had a history
of improperly using the internet to engage in illegal conduct; or
(3) particular and identifiable characteristics of the defendant
suggested that such a restriction was warranted." Perazza-Mercado,
553 F.3d at 70 (citing cases).
-29-
Ramos's case raises two variations from the facts of
Perazza-Mercado.23 Here the overlapping conditions go beyond a ban
on the internet at home, and instead cover any possession or use,
anywhere, of a computer, or of a device with the capability to
access the internet. Also, there is an attempt in this case to
provide for leeway in the conditions. Ramos's condition barring
use of computers or devices with internet access would allow such
use with prior approval from probation; the additional internet and
computer conditions have an exception if Ramos seeks prior court
approval. Thus the government contends that Ramos does not face an
absolute ban, "but mostly a conditional limitation."
This authority of probation or a future court to modify
a sweeping ban on computer or internet use does not immunize the
ban from an inquiry that evaluates the justification for the ban in
the first instance. Otherwise, in the guise of delegation to a
future decision-maker, sentencing courts could abdicate their
responsibility to assess the compatibility of supervised release
conditions with the goals of sentencing. To approve problematic
conditions because a judge or a probation officer might, in her or
his discretion, relax them in the future, undermines the command to
23
After more than fifteen years in prison, Ramos faces a
shorter period of supervised release, ten years, than the fifteen
years of supervised release in Perazza-Mercado after four years of
prison. The difference in length of the supervised release terms
does not alter the result here.
-30-
sentencing courts to not deprive offenders of more liberty than is
necessary to carry out the goals of supervised release.
The district court did not cite evidence in the record
that Ramos used a computer or the internet in any way in connection
with the offense, nor did it identify past impermissible uses that
justified generally barring him from using a computer or the
internet for ten years.24 We read the court's brief explanation as
positing its personal belief that there may be a link between
Ramos's crime and the potential for using a computer or the
internet for child-pornography offenses.
Of course, access to a computer and the internet can
facilitate such crimes. But the fact "[t]hat an offense is
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." United States v. Burroughs, 613 F.3d
233, 243 (D.C. Cir. 2010); cf. United States v. Peterson, 248 F.3d
79, 83 (2d Cir. 2001) ("Although a defendant might use the
telephone to commit fraud, this would not justify a condition of
probation that includes an absolute bar on the use of
telephones."). The sentencing guidelines recommend a condition
24
United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2014),
provides a helpful overview and guidance for properly imposing
special conditions. As part of suggested best practices, it
recommends that a district court determine the appropriateness of
a special condition "with reference to the particular conduct,
character, etc., of the defendant, rather than on the basis of
loose generalizations." Id. at 717.
-31-
"limiting the use of a computer or an interactive computer service"
for a defendant convicted of a sex offense against a minor, "in
cases in which the defendant used such items." U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5D1.3(d)(7)(B) (2009) (emphasis added).
We note that cases in other circuits are in general
accord: where a defendant's offense did not involve the use of the
internet or a computer, and he did not have a history of
impermissible internet or computer use, courts have vacated broad
internet and computer bans regardless of probation's leeway in
being able to grant exceptions. Compare, e.g., United States v.
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). The district court's reasoning would
impermissibly create a categorical rule allowing broad limitations
on computer and internet use simply because the offense of
-32-
conviction involved child pornography. See Perazza-Mercado, 553
F.3d at 77 ("The Sentencing Commission creates such generally
applicable conditions of supervised release, not appellate
judges.").
The government labors to fill the void of justification
for the computer and internet restrictions. For example, it notes
that Ramos admitted to looking at adult pornography, has some
familiarity with computers, and did computer repair work in his
housing project. "It is significant that other co-defendants
possessed child pornography in their personal computers,"25 the
government argues, further noting that Ramos had a small reading
device (a Barnes & Noble Nook) that he apparently had reprogrammed
to function as a more general-use computer tablet. Although the
authorities never seized and searched the tablet, the government
contends that the restrictions "were responsive to those facts," a
reference that apparently includes the unreviewed tablet.
These arguments ignore the absence of evidence of Ramos
using a computer or the internet in the commission of his crime,
and the lack of any indication that Ramos had used a computer or
the internet for illegal purposes, such as viewing child
pornography, or improperly contacting minors. The prosecutor
released Ramos's computer to his family because there was no child
25
The government appears to be referring to Vilanova and
Gonzáles-Morales, both of whom were charged in the superseding
indictment with possession of images of child pornography.
-33-
pornography found on it, and there is no indication in the record
that his tablet contained child pornography, or that he likely
repaired or had access to the computers of the co-defendants in
this case. In short, the government's contentions are "nothing but
post hoc conjecture." Burroughs, 613 F.3d at 244.
Importantly, the computer and internet conditions that
Ramos did not challenge on appeal include monitoring and filtering
systems, searches of any computer equipment, and searches of other
electronic or data-storage devices upon reasonable suspicion.
These conditions are narrowly tailored tools that further undercut
the argument for any broader internet and computer ban in this
case.26 Given that these narrowly tailored conditions are already
26
The record shows inconsistency in how co-defendants were
treated with respect to internet and computer bans. Ramos,
Vilanova, and Rodríguez-Acevedo were sentenced on May 29, 2012, and
all received broad limitations on internet and computer use without
probation approval. It appears that only Ramos objected to the
conditions at sentencing, and he was the only defendant in that
group without a history of impermissible internet use: Vilanova
had a collection of images of child pornography, and Rodríguez-
Acevedo had online conversations of a sexual nature with KMV.
About two months later, co-defendants Encarnación-Ruiz and
Gonzáles-Morales were sentenced. Neither one had conditions
imposed that banned using the internet or computers without
probation approval, despite presentence reports that had
recommended such conditions. In Encarnación-Ruiz's case, he filed
written objections to the initial presentence report. He
contended, as Ramos did, that the internet and computer bans were
not reasonably related to his offense or characteristics. It
appears the probation officer agreed with Encarnación-Ruiz's
objections because the challenged conditions did not appear in the
final presentence report submitted to the court. For Gonzáles-
Morales, his presentence report stated that a digital storage card
that he owned had two videos of child pornography. The record does
not show that he ever objected to the presentence report's
-34-
in place, there is no need for us remand to the district court, as
we did in Perazza-Mercado, so that it might devise appropriate
restrictions on Ramos's computer and internet use. We thus vacate
the challenged restrictions to the use of a computer or the
internet — specifically, the additional supervised release terms
numbered 9, 17, and 18.27
C. The ban on pornography
At sentencing, the district court added a special
condition, not sought by the government, that Ramos "will not
possess any pornographic material unless approved by the probation
officer, which of course they won't." The court did not separately
explain the reason for that condition, and the defendant did not
ask for an explanation. We think it reasonable to infer, however,
that the court saw some unstated connection between viewing adult
pornography and the child pornography offenses here. In that
sense, the court probably drew on the justification it offered for
the sweeping ban on internet and computer use — "when you commit
this kind of offense and the offense involves minors . . . there
recommended ban on using any computer or devices with internet
capability. Yet no such condition appears in his judgment of
conviction.
These inconsistencies in the imposed sentencing conditions for
the co-defendants further undermine the government's rationale for
imposing on Ramos the sweeping bans on computer and internet use.
27
We further note that probation can move to modify conditions
of supervised release, see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2), should there be
a change in circumstances to justify additional conditions.
-35-
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." Again, the court cited no
evidence specific to this case or in behavioral studies supporting
the connection that the court suggests "may" exist between watching
adult pornography and the production of child pornography.
In Perazza-Mercado we also vacated, on plain-error
review, a ban on adult pornography because the ban imposed, in the
absence of any evidentiary support, was not reasonably related to
the nature and circumstances of the offense and to the history and
characteristics of the defendant. 553 F.3d at 76. "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." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).28
Here, the ban on any pornographic material, contained in condition
14 of the additional supervised release conditions, must be vacated
28
We recognize that the presentence report indicates that
Ramos, unlike the defendant in Perazza-Mercado, viewed adult
pornography in the more recent past. However, the government does
not argue that such a fact distinguishes this case, and there is no
discussion of this point in the district court's sentencing
explanation. Moreover, nothing in the record justifies, as far as
we can tell, the conclusion that viewing adult pornography was a
habit that "contributed to his offense or would be likely to do so
in the future." Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d at 76.
-36-
for the same reason.29 However, the district court may revisit this
issue at a resentencing limited to a reconsideration of the
pornography ban. If it chooses to reimpose such a condition, it
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. We remand for the
district court to modify the judgment in accordance with this
opinion, and to revisit the pornography ban if it wishes, subject
to the requirements stated herein.
So ordered.
29
The government contends that this ban is akin to the
condition challenged in United States v. Sebastian, 612 F.3d 47
(1st Cir. 2010). That condition barred the offender from
possessing pornography if such a condition were part of a sex
offender treatment program. As the court in Sebastian noted, such
a condition "does little more than require [the defendant] to
follow the rules of any program he may be required to attend." Id.
at 52. Here the ban on pornography is for the ten-year probation
term and does not depend on being part of a treatment program.
Thus the ban falls within the holding of Perazza-Mercado.
30
Because we vacate the condition as inadequately supported,
we do not reach Ramos's argument that the ban on "pornographic
material" is unconstitutionally vague.
-37-