UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4810
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
SHAWN LYNN HISE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00007-MFU-1)
Submitted: April 8, 2013 Decided: April 15, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney,
Elizabeth G. Wright, Assistant United States Attorney,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Lynn Hise pleaded guilty to knowingly failing to
register and update his sex offender registration, in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2250 (West Supp. 2012). The district court
sentenced Hise to twenty-seven months of imprisonment followed
by three years of supervised release. The court also imposed
several special conditions of supervised release that prohibited
Hise from (1) residing with or visiting residences with minor
children without his probation officer’s permission;
(2) obtaining employment or volunteering in positions that
require contact with minor children without the permission of
his probation officer; (3) loitering near areas where children
normally congregate; and (4) possessing or viewing pornography
depicting minors or actors portraying minors. Hise appeals from
the imposition of these enumerated conditions of supervised
release. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Hise argues on appeal that the district court abused
its discretion in imposing the three conditions restricting his
contact with minor children. In addition, Hise argues that the
district court failed to offer an adequate explanation for
imposition of the prohibition related to his possession of child
pornography.
“A sentencing court may impose any condition that is
reasonably related to the relevant statutory sentencing
2
factors,” including the nature and circumstances of the offense,
the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for
deterrence and protecting the public from future crimes, and
providing the defendant with training or treatment. United
States v. Worley, 685 F.3d 404, 407 (4th Cir. 2012); see 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006). While “[a] particular restriction does
not require an offense-specific nexus, . . . the sentencing
court must adequately explain its decision and its reasons for
imposing it.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). “‘District courts have broad latitude to impose
conditions on supervised release,’ and so we review such
conditions only for abuse of discretion.” Id. (quoting United
States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182, 186 (4th Cir. 2009)). We have
thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal
authorities and conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in imposing the restrictions on Hise’s contact
with minor children, and adequately explained the final
condition prohibiting Hise from possessing child pornography.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4