United States v. Page ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40722 Document: 00516786129 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-40722
Summary Calendar
FILED
June 14, 2023
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Andrian Page,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:18-CR-15-1
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-Appellant Andrian Page pleaded guilty to sexual
exploitation of children, distribution of child pornography, receipt of child
pornography, and possession of child pornography. Page appeals one of his
supervised release conditions that he not possess or use “computers or other
electronic communications or data storage devices or media, without the
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40722 Document: 00516786129 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/14/2023
No. 22-40722
prior approval of the probation officer.” He challenges the notion that this
condition requires him to seek approval for each individual instance that he
accesses a computer.
Our review is for plain error because Page did not object to this
condition before the district court. United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 799, 802
(5th Cir. 2015). He must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and
that affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129,
135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to
correct the error only if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks, alteration,
and citation omitted).
We have held that special conditions requiring a defendant to obtain
prior approval for each use of an electronic device to access the internet are
unreasonably restrictive. United States v. Naidoo, 995 F.3d 367, 374 (5th Cir.
2021); United States v. Sealed Juvenile, 781 F.3d 747, 756-57 (5th Cir. 2015).
The Government agrees that such an interpretation is improper and counter
to how the condition is written, and requests that we affirm the condition
with instructions that “prior approval” does not require individual approval
for each specific instance of computer use. See Naidoo, 995 F.3d at 374. We
have previously done so in similar cases. See id. at 384; Sealed Juvenile, 781
F.3d at 758; United States v. Clark, 784 F. App’x 190, 191 (5th Cir. 2019);
United States v. Melton, 753 F. App’x 283, 288-89 (5th Cir. 2018).
We AFFIRM the condition of prior approval subject to the
interpretation that such condition does not require Page to seek approval
prior to each use of a computer or other covered device or media.
2