United States v. Carl Joseph Lechner

Case: 16-12973 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-12973
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cr-60226-DTKH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CARL JOSEPH LECHNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(October 18, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-12973 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 2 of 3
Carl Joseph Lechner pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm after a felony
conviction. The district court sentenced Lechner to sixteen months of
imprisonment and to three years of supervised release. The district court then
conditioned the supervised release on Lechner’s participation in a sex offender
treatment program. Lechner preserved his objection to, and now appeals, the
condition. We affirm.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), a district court may impose a condition of
supervised release if the condition “is reasonably related to” any of several factors
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). One such factor is “the history and characteristics of the
defendant.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Citing both Lechner’s admission of
possessing child pornography and testimony during sentencing that Lechner
sexually assaulted a minor, the district court conditioned Lechner’s supervised
release on his participation in a sex offender treatment program. We review for
abuse of discretion the district court’s imposition of the condition and “reverse
only if we have a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached.” See United States v. Moran,
573 F.3d 1132, 1137 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Lechner argues first that the condition is not related to his conviction.
Squarely foreclosing this argument, Moran rejects a defendant’s argument that the
condition of participation in a sex offender treatment program is not related to his
2
Case: 16-12973 Date Filed: 10/18/2016 Page: 3 of 3
conviction for possessing a firearm after a felony conviction. See Id. at 1139(“Moran argues that the special condition is not related to his conviction, but we
have approved of mental treatment to address unrelated prior crimes.”). Second,
arguing that he was not convicted for the alleged sexual assault, Lechner attempts
to create a requirement that, when imposing a condition based on the “history and
characteristics of the defendant,” a district court consider only a conviction.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). No such requirement exists. See United States v. Bull,
214 F.3d 1275, 1278 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing not only convictions but “other
incidents involving threats and violence” in affirming a condition that the
defendant “participate in mental health treatment for anger and violence”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in conditioning Lechner’s
supervised release on participation in a sex offender treatment program.
AFFIRMED.
3