United States v. Anthony Miller , 514 F. App'x 374 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4904
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTHONY SCOTT MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00078-1)
Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 22, 2013
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne,
Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public
Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth
Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Jennifer L. Rada, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Scott Miller appeals the district court
judgment imposing a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment and a
thirty-year term of supervised release following the revocation
of Miller’s supervised release term. On appeal, Miller
challenges a special condition of supervised release requiring
him to undergo a psychosexual evaluation and to participate in
any recommended treatment program. We affirm.
District courts are afforded broad latitude in
imposing conditions of supervised release, which we review for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Worley, 685 F.3d 404, 407
(4th Cir. 2012). Although a particular condition of supervised
release need not be connected to the underlying offense, id.,the sentencing court must provide an explanation for the
conditions it imposes. United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182,
186 (4th Cir. 2009).
Miller challenges the special condition requiring
psychosexual evaluation and compliance with treatment
recommendations, arguing that his underlying conviction for
failing to register and update registration as required by the
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), 18
U.S.C. § 2250 (2006), does not involve actual sexual misconduct,
and that his only sex offense conviction occurred in 2003. In
imposing the special condition of supervised release, the
2
district court took into account that Miller’s underlying
conviction was a SORNA violation, and considered his history and
characteristics, including his admission to his probation
officer that he had masturbated to images of minors. Under
these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the
district court’s imposition of the special condition of
supervised release.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 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
3