United States v. David Dolivek ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              FEB 22 2013
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-50106
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:02-cr-00045-RSWL-1
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    DAVID DOLIVEK,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Ronald S.W. Lew, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted February 12, 2013 *
    Pasadena, California
    Before: GOODWIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    Appellant David Dovilek, convicted of possession of child pornography,
    argues that the district court abused its discretion when it modified the conditions
    of his supervised release to permit computer use but with a requirement for
    keystroke monitoring. We disagree.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    -2-
    We recognize that keystroke monitoring is more intrusive than mere Internet
    monitoring and not appropriate in every case. See United States v. Quinzon, 
    643 F.3d 1266
    , 1273 (9th Cir. 2011). However, Dolivek’s illicit computer use involved
    more than just online activities. He ran a commercial child pornography
    distribution business. In addition, he created his own child pornography
    videotapes. A former web designer, Dolivek is a sophisticated computer user who
    had the knowledge, software, and experience to avoid detection of more criminal
    misuse of his computer, if keystroke monitoring was not imposed. Because
    keystroke computer monitoring is reasonably related to the specific circumstances
    of Dolivek’s offense and individual characteristics, and the need to protect the
    public, the district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Rearden,
    
    349 F.3d 608
    , 621 (9th Cir. 2003).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-50106

Judges: Goodwin, Kleinfeld, Silverman

Filed Date: 2/22/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024