US v. John Loflin
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
February 25, 2009
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. of discretion by the district court in We find no abuse Loflin's
computer usage at work. 288 (4th Cir. 2008)
United States v. Holman, 532 F.3d 284, review standard). District
courts have "broad latitude" with regard to special conditions of supervised release. 260 (4th Cir. 2003). United States v. Dotson, 324 F.3d 256, 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.
computer U.S. p.s.
5D1.3(d)(7)(B), 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. p.s. Accordingly, we affirm Loflin's sentence and the See USSG § 5D1.3(e)(4),
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?