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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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. 16-10405
D.C. No.
2:07-cr-00023-MCE-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted September 12, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,**
District Judge.
1. Since Cardoso’s original crime involved possession of child pornography
downloaded from the Internet, the supervised release condition restricting his
FILED
OCT 04 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Iowa, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

page 2
access to the Internet was a reasonable measure “‘to protect the public from further
crimes of the defendant’ and ‘to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.’”
United States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128, 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(2)(B) & (C)).
2. Revocation of supervised release must be based on “credible evidence the
releasee actually violated the terms of supervised release.” United States v. Perez,
526 F.3d 543, 547 (9th Cir. 2008). Cardoso’s supervised release conditions
expressly required him to follow his probation officer’s instructions. The officer
informed him when she intended to conduct a home inspection, but Cardoso was
not present, thus violating his release condition. Lesson learned.
3. Similarly, by frequenting the Fair Oaks house without informing his
probation officer, Cardoso failed to follow the officer’s instructions that any
residence be approved in advance. Ditto.
4. A supervised release condition forbidding a releasee to “possess any
sexually stimulating or sexually oriented material as deemed inappropriate by [his]
probation officer and/or treatment staff,” United States v. Bee, 162 F.3d 1232,
1234 (9th Cir. 1998) (alteration in original), does not violate the First Amendment.
The district court thus did not err in imposing special release condition 12, which
was more narrowly tailored. However, since the oral pronouncement of Cardoso’s

-- 2 of 3 --

page 3
release conditions differed from the written judgment, we vacate the district court’s
judgment so that the written judgment may be conformed to the oral
pronouncement. See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 668 (9th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

-- 3 of 3 --