## Facts

- Shawn Gementera stole mail from residential mailboxes in San Francisco and was observed by a police officer acting as a lookout while an accomplice took letters.
- He pleaded guilty to one count of mail theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1708; a count for receiving a stolen U.S. Treasury check under 18 U.S.C. § 641 was dismissed.
- The presentence report described an escalating criminal record including misdemeanor offenses and multiple driving-related convictions.
- The Guidelines range was two to eight months’ imprisonment; the district court sentenced him to two months in prison and three years of supervised release.
- As a supervised-release condition, the court required a set of rehabilitative activities: observing customers at a postal “lost or missing mail” window, writing apology letters to victims, lecturing at a local high school, and standing outside a postal facility for one eight-hour day wearing a sign stating, “I stole mail. This is my punishment.”
- After objections, the court modified the condition to integrate the sign requirement into the broader set of restorative and educational obligations.

## Issues

1. Whether the supervised-release condition requiring an eight-hour public signboard display satisfied 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) as “reasonably related” to the relevant sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
2. Whether the condition imposed “a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to serve the statutory goals, including rehabilitation.
3. Whether “shaming” features of a supervised-release condition render it impermissible under the Sentencing Reform Act.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence and upheld the supervised-release condition.
- The court held the condition, considered alongside the related requirements (victim exposure, apologies, and a school talk), was reasonably related to rehabilitation.
- The court held the condition did not impose a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary, emphasizing its limited duration and its place within an individualized sentencing plan.
- A dissent would have invalidated the signboard requirement as public humiliation inconsistent with the sentencing scheme’s purposes and incompatible with respect for human dignity.

## Legal Principles

- A supervised-release condition is valid under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) if it is reasonably related to the defendant’s offense and history and to the sentencing objectives in § 3553(a), including deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation.
- A supervised-release condition must not impose a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to achieve the statutory purposes.
- A condition is not unlawful merely because it causes embarrassment; the controlling inquiry is whether it functions as a tailored means of rehabilitation within the statutory limits.
- Appellate review assesses the condition in context, including how multiple requirements operate together as an individualized plan rather than as an isolated punitive gesture.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that an eight-hour signboard requirement, integrated with restorative and educational conditions, fell within the district court’s statutory authority because it was tied to rehabilitation and imposed no more liberty restriction than necessary under § 3583(d).


United States v. Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2004)