United States of America v. Troy L. Cardoso

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TROY L. CARDOSO,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10436
D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00023-MCE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
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.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-10436
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.

-- 2 of 2 --