Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

US v. Thielemann, No. 08-2335

By FindLaw Staff on August 03, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Conviction and sentence for receiving child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant as its analysis under 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553(a) was informed and adequate, and the sentence was reasonable; 2) the court did not err in imposing a special condition of supervised release of barring defendant from sexually explicit materials as there is a significant nexus between restricting defendant from access to adult sexually explicit material and the goals of supervised release, and the restriction is not overbroad or vague; and 3) the court did not err in imposing the special condition of supervised release of restricting defendant's access to computers and internet use as the restriction shares a nexus to the goals of deterrence and protection of the public, and does not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is necessary.    

Read US v. Thielemann, No. 08-2335

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
Argued May 20, 3009
Decided August 3, 2009

Before: RENDELL and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and VANASKIE, District Judge.
Opinion by GARTH, Circuit Judge.

For Appellant: LARRICK B. STAPLETON, Ardmore, PA.

For Appellee: EDMOND FALGOWSKI, Office of the United States Attorney, Wilmington, DE.

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard