In United States v. Cordero, No. 18-10837 (Aug. 4, 2021) (Branch, Grant, Tjoflat), the Court affirmed the defendant’s motion to modify and terminate his supervised release.
First, the district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a sealed order requiring the defendant to disclose information related to the work he performed and by requiring him to disclose his sex offender status to potential clients. The Court rejected his argument that the order effectively modified his supervision and imposed a new restriction without granting him an evidentiary hearing or making necessary findings. The district court was merely enforcing a previously-imposed condition of his supervision. To the extent the defendant sought to challenge the original condition, he failed to appeal it after it was imposed, and any such challenge was barred by a valid appeal waiver.
Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to modify the conditions of supervised release to eliminate a restriction on internet access. Although the district court did not explicitly address the 3553(a) factors, the record as a whole supported the conclusion that the district court considered them. And those factors supported the continued existence of the restriction. In addition, while the defendant argued that the internet restriction was now unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Packingham, the Court joined three other circuits in concluding that a defendant cannot challenge the legality or constitutionality of his supervised release conditions through a motion for modification under 3582(e)(2); that argument must instead be raised on direct appeal or in a 2255 motion. In any event, the Court noted that its recent decision in Bobal foreclosed the defendant’s constitutional challenge.
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for early termination because the record as a whole supported the conclusion that the district court considered the 3553(a) factors.