Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Troy L. CARDOSO, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Troy L. Cardoso appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to modify a condition of his supervised release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Bainbridge, 746 F.3d 943, 946 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.
Cardoso argues that the special condition of his supervised release that prohibits him from possessing or using, without his probation officer’s approval, any device that has access to any online computer service, is overbroad as applied to him. This argument fails because the condition “allows for approval of appropriate online access by the Probation Office,” and therefore does not operate as an overly broad ban on Internet access. See United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608, 621 (9th Cir. 2003). Contrary to Cardoso’s claim, the fact that his probation officer denied his first and only request for access does not change this conclusion. The district court’s denial of Cardoso’s motion to modify this condition was warranted under the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and circumstances of the underlying offense, the need to protect the public and provide deterrence, and Cardoso’s repeated violations of the conditions of his supervised release, including the condition at issue in the instant appeal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128, 1142 (9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 17-10436
Decided: February 22, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)