Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 15-4473
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam OGrady, District
Judge. (1:09-cr-00218-LO-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
February 4, 2016
PER CURIAM:
Andre Lamont Cook pled guilty in 2009 to travel with intent
to engage in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
2423(b) (2012).
followed
Cooks
by
ten
supervised
of
supervised
release
release.
included
The
number
terms
of
of
Special
Computer
&
Internet
Monitoring
Program
Participant
of
Cooks
devices
and
an
supervised
capable
of
iPhone),
release,
accessing
without
alleging
that
the
internet
prior
approval
Cook
(desktop
of
the
Probation Officer.
the testimony of two witnesses who stated that Cook did not use
the computers and did not have the password to the iPhone found
in his car.
He
We affirm.
18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3)
[A] preponderance of the
argues,
first,
that
the
district
court
erred
in
did
so
to
access
online
3
computer
services.
Cooks
However, the
Such restrictions
use
of
computer.
See,
e.g.,
United
States
v.
Carpenter, 803 F.3d 1224, 1239 (11th Cir. 2015) (noting that
our
cases
have
uniformly
upheld
conditions
prohibiting
finding
that
Cook
possessed
internet-capable
district
court
did
not
clearly
err
in
finding
that
he
release;
rather,
Special
Condition
only
that,
by
allowing
the
probation
officer
to
administer
the
reject
both
of
these
arguments.
First,
Special
second,
probation
officers
are
authorized
to
manage
Cir. 1995).
officer
judicial
function,
as
court
sentencing,
delegation
improperly
[courts]
to
such
probation
delegation
Id. at 808-09.
delegated
have
drawn
officer
the
a
judicial
distinction
of
violates
To determine
authority
of
between
the
ministerial
act
or
it
is
permissible
to
delegate
to
the
probation
Id.
(internal
quotation
ellipsis omitted).
5
marks,
brackets,
and
used
or
owned
any
unauthorized
internet-capable
computer.
to
the
iPhone.
However,
the
district
are
not
subject
to
review.
court
Credibility
United
States
v.
discretion
in
Therefore, we affirm.
revoking
Cooks
supervised
release.
before
this
court
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED