Case: 14-13903 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 14-13903
Non-Argument Calendar
_________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:10-cr-00121-WKW-SRW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRED WILLIAM BRAND,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
_________________________
(March 3, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After serving 40 months in custody for failing to register as a sex offender in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250, Fred William Brand violated the terms of his 20-
year term of supervised release by driving with a suspended license and failing to
Case: 14-13903 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 2 of 3
attend required sex offender treatment. Based upon these violations, the district
court sentenced him to 14 months in custody and re-imposed the 20-year term of
supervised release. The district court also imposed numerous conditions of
supervised release, including the one Mr. Brand now challenges on appeal:
“participation] in a program approved by the . . . Probation Office for the treatment
and monitoring of sex offenders, to include polygraph testing if determined
necessary by the treatment provider and/or the supervising probation officer.” For
the reasons which follow, we affirm the district court’s imposition of this
condition.
First, Mr. Brand’s contention that the condition violates the Fifth
Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination is foreclosed by our decisions in
United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084, 1090-92 (11th Cir. 2003), and United States
v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 1280, 1284 (11th Cir. 2003). As those cases explain, there is no
Fifth Amendment claim until a defendant is forced to testify over his valid claim of
privilege. Here the term of supervised release has not yet begun, so Mr. Brand has
not been forced, due to the condition, to testify over a valid claim of privilege. To
the extent Mr. Brand says that his situation is not controlled by Zinn and Taylor
because of his low IQ – which purportedly makes it difficult for him to assert his
Fifth Amendment rights – he did not make that argument below, and we do not
perceive any plain error. See Zinn, 321 F.3d at 1087.
2
Case: 14-13903 Date Filed: 03/03/2015 Page: 3 of 3
Second, on this record the imposition of the condition is substantively
reasonable and does not constitute an abuse of discretion. See Taylor, 338 F.3d at
1283 (reviewing similar condition for abuse of discretion). Mr. Brand had prior
convictions for child molestation, battery, theft, and deprivation of a child (i.e.,
failing to provide proper housing for minor children). In addition, he had violated
his probation and supervised release a number of times; he continued to deny that
he was guilty of child molestation; and the district court was concerned with his
lack of candor and lack of respect for the law. As a result, the district court had
sufficient reasons, related to Mr. Brand’s offense and personal history, for
imposing the condition. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); Zinn, 321 F.3d at 1090.
AFFIRMED.
3