## Facts

- Investigators identified a computer using LimeWire to make child pornography files available; the computer was registered to Paul Blinkinsop, an Air Force staff sergeant.
- Blinkinsop admitted viewing child pornography online and using search terms such as “teenage” and “school girl.”
- After he refused consent, agents obtained a warrant and seized his computer and external storage devices.
- Forensic review found more than 600 child-pornography images from 2002–2008, including 42 videos and images depicting children under 12 and graphic sexual abuse.
- A grand jury charged receipt of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)) and possession (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)), with a forfeiture allegation.
- Blinkinsop pleaded guilty to receipt; the government agreed to dismiss the possession count.
- The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 97–121 months, imposed 97 months’ imprisonment, and ordered five years of supervised release with special conditions including a near-total internet ban, restrictions on being in places frequented by children, and a camera-phone prohibition.
- Blinkinsop did not object at sentencing and appealed the prison term and three special conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether the 97-month within-Guidelines sentence was procedurally unreasonable or substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
2. Whether challenged supervised-release conditions (internet restriction, “places frequented by children” restriction, and camera-phone prohibition) were reasonably related to statutory goals and imposed no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).
3. What effect plain-error review has when the defendant fails to object to sentencing explanations or supervised-release conditions in the district court.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the 97-month term of imprisonment as procedurally sound and substantively reasonable.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed some supervised-release conditions but vacated parts of the challenged conditions as overbroad or insufficiently tailored.
- The case was remanded for limited resentencing to revise the invalidated supervised-release conditions.

## Legal Principles

- A within-Guidelines sentence is generally upheld when the record shows the court correctly calculated the range, treated the Guidelines as advisory, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and provided an adequate explanation showing reasoned decision-making.
- When a defendant fails to object at sentencing, appellate review of alleged sentencing error may proceed under the plain-error standard.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), special conditions of supervised release must be reasonably related to the offense, the defendant’s characteristics, deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation; must impose no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary; and must be consistent with Sentencing Commission policy statements.
- Internet-use restrictions may be appropriate in child-pornography cases involving online conduct, but near-categorical bans risk invalidation when narrower, monitored, or probation-approved access would serve statutory purposes.
- Location restrictions aimed at avoiding contact with children must be defined and tailored so they are not unreasonably vague or so broad that they bar routine lawful activities without a close connection to individualized risk.
- Device bans (including camera-phone prohibitions) require a demonstrated connection to the offense and careful tailoring, particularly where monitoring or inspection could address risk with less restraint.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Blinkinsop’s bottom-of-the-Guidelines prison sentence for receiving child pornography but required that supervised-release conditions be narrowed where they imposed sweeping limits—especially regarding internet use and broad location restrictions—beyond what was necessary to serve statutory sentencing goals.


United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2010)