USA v. Defendant 1, 2:12-cr-004-APG-GWF. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180103966
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jan. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FREDERICK THOMAS'S MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE (ECF No. 1438) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Defendant Frederick Thomas moves to modify the conditions of his supervised release. ECF No. 1438. Specifically, he seeks the elimination of Special Conditions 5 and 6, which require him to both obtain permission from the Probation Office before possessing or using a computer with internet access and allow the Probation Office to monitor his comput
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FREDERICK THOMAS'S MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE (ECF No. 1438) ANDREW P. GORDON , District Judge . Defendant Frederick Thomas moves to modify the conditions of his supervised release. ECF No. 1438. Specifically, he seeks the elimination of Special Conditions 5 and 6, which require him to both obtain permission from the Probation Office before possessing or using a computer with internet access and allow the Probation Office to monitor his compute..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT FREDERICK THOMAS'S MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
(ECF No. 1438)
ANDREW P. GORDON, District Judge.
Defendant Frederick Thomas moves to modify the conditions of his supervised release. ECF No. 1438. Specifically, he seeks the elimination of Special Conditions 5 and 6, which require him to both obtain permission from the Probation Office before possessing or using a computer with internet access and allow the Probation Office to monitor his computer use. ECF No. 874 at 4. Thomas contends these restrictions will unduly interfere with his ability to obtain employment and housing. ECF No. 1438 at 2. The government and the Probation Office oppose Thomas's motion.
Thomas's offense involved the use of computers and the internet. The computer restrictions imposed in the Judgment are necessary to allow the Probation Office to monitor Thomas's computer activities to ensure he does not reoffend. The restrictions also act as a deterrent to such crimes. Thomas will not be banned from using computers and the internet. Rather, he must obtain approval from the Probation Office and provide requested information about his computer and internet activities. Thomas has not shown sufficient reasons to justify removal of these conditions at this time.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant Frederick Thomas's motion to modify the conditions of his supervised release (ECF No. 1438) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
