United States v. Loflin , 318 F. App'x 212 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4677
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN WILLIAM LOFLIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:02-cr-00005-FPS-1)
Submitted: February 25, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brendan S. Leary, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Wheeling,
West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States
Attorney, Shawn Angus Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney,
Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John William Loflin appeals a special condition of his
supervised release regarding his sentence imposed on remand for
resentencing under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
After reviewing the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2006), the district court resentenced Loflin to 144 months of
imprisonment for his three convictions for traveling in
interstate commerce to engage in a sexual act with a juvenile
and his three convictions for transportation of a minor in
interstate commerce with intent to engage in criminal sexual
activity. The court also imposed a three-year term of
supervised release.
The special condition to which Loflin objects regards
limitations on his use of a computer at work. ∗ We find no abuse
of discretion by the district court in restricting Loflin’s
computer usage at work. United States v. Holman, 532 F.3d 284,
288 (4th Cir. 2008) (providing review standard). District
courts have “broad latitude” with regard to special conditions
of supervised release. United States v. Dotson, 324 F.3d 256,
260 (4th Cir. 2003). The advisory Sentencing Guidelines
recommend limitations of computer use for sex offenders where a
∗
The evidence at trial revealed Loflin used a computer to
aid his crimes.
2
computer or interactive computer service aided their crimes,
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 5D1.3(d)(7)(B),
p.s. (2007), and allow conditions requiring unannounced and
warrantless inspections and searches of computers and related
equipment. See USSG § 5D1.3(d)(7)(C), p.s. Also, the
Sentencing Guidelines permit occupational restrictions generally
as a condition of supervised release. See USSG § 5D1.3(e)(4),
p.s.
Accordingly, we affirm Loflin’s sentence and the
special conditions of supervised release regarding limitations
on his computer usage at work. We dispense with oral argument
as the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3