United States v. Arredondo: Live-Streamed Sexual Misconduct Can Justify Pornography and Internet-Use Restrictions and Defeat Acceptance of Responsibility

Introduction

In United States v. Arredondo, No. 24-10886 (5th Cir. Oct. 14, 2025) (per curiam) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed a 63-month sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed on a defendant who pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The appeal raised three principal issues:

• Whether the district court correctly enhanced the base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) by treating Texas aggravated robbery as a “crime of violence” under § 4B1.2(a);
• Whether the court erred in denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 based on the defendant’s alleged post-plea sexual misconduct involving his minor daughter; and
• Whether special supervised release conditions restricting pornography and requiring preauthorization for categories of computer and internet use violated 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).

The panel also addressed and rejected, as foreclosed by circuit precedent, constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment. Although not designated for publication (see 5th Cir. R. 47.5), the opinion offers a detailed application of Fifth Circuit sentencing and supervised-release jurisprudence, especially regarding how uncharged, post-plea sexual misconduct presented in the presentence record can drive both guideline outcomes and sex-related conditions in a non-sex-offense case.

Summary of the Opinion

The court affirmed in full. It held:

• The “crime of violence” issue is foreclosed by United States v. Wickware, 143 F.4th 670 (5th Cir. 2025), which treats Texas robbery as a crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2).
• The district court did not clearly err—under the Fifth Circuit’s “even more deferential” standard—by denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility after crediting record evidence that the defendant engaged in new, sexually criminal conduct with his minor daughter during custody, including a sexually explicit live video call and admissions of in-person sexual incidents.
• Special supervised release conditions (a pornography ban and preauthorization for categories of computer and internet use) were within the court’s discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), given a sufficient record-based nexus to the defendant’s recent sexual misconduct, and were not a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary.
• Commerce Clause and Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1) are foreclosed by United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1081 (2024), and United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), respectively.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Crime of violence under the Guidelines: United States v. Wickware, 143 F.4th 670 (5th Cir. 2025), squarely rejected the argument that the Guidelines’ “crime of violence” definition requires a causal nexus between the taking and force elements of robbery. Relying on Wickware, the panel held Texas robbery fits U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), foreclosing the defendant’s challenge to the § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) enhancement.
• Acceptance of responsibility: The court invoked the deference articulated in United States v. Najera, 915 F.3d 997, 1002 (5th Cir. 2019) (“even more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard”) and the principle that continuing criminal conduct can defeat acceptance, even if unrelated to the offense of conviction, citing United States v. Puckett, 505 F.3d 377, 387 (5th Cir. 2007), and United States v. Hinojosa-Almance, 977 F.3d 407, 411 (5th Cir. 2022).
• Supervised release conditions framework: The panel applied 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)’s three-part test, as synthesized in United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149, 153–54 (5th Cir. 2009) (reasonable relation to § 3553(a) factors, no greater deprivation than necessary, and consistency with Sentencing Commission policy statements). It reiterated that courts may consider a defendant’s broader conduct, not just the offense of conviction. The “some connection” standard for the first prong comes from United States v. Fields, 777 F.3d 799, 803 (5th Cir. 2015). The tailoring standard derives from United States v. Duke, 788 F.3d 392, 398–99 (5th Cir. 2015). And even absent explicit on-the-record reasons for a condition, a reviewing court may affirm if the rationale can be inferred from the record, per United States v. Iverson, 874 F.3d 855, 861 (5th Cir. 2017).
• Pornography and internet restrictions—comparators and distinctions: The court distinguished two vacatur cases—United States v. Salazar, 743 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014), and United States v. Huor, 852 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2017)—both involving failure-to-register offenses with remote, single sex offenses and no evidence of pornography use or likely recidivism. It also distinguished United States v. Tang, 718 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2013), and United States v. Fernandez, 776 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2015), which vacated internet restrictions where there was no nexus between the offense or relevant conduct and computer/internet use. By contrast, Arredondo’s live video sexual misconduct provided a strong nexus supporting both a pornography ban and internet-use preauthorization.
• Live-streamed conduct as “visual depiction” akin to child pornography: To support the pornography condition’s nexus, the panel cited 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) (covering live visual depictions) and aligned with an unpublished Fifth Circuit panel in United States v. Nichols, 371 F. App’x 546, 548 (5th Cir. 2010), and with the Sixth Circuit’s holding in United States v. Gould, 30 F.4th 538, 543–44 (6th Cir. 2022), that real-time video platforms can qualify as “visual depictions.” This strengthened the inference that the defendant’s live video session “resembled child pornography,” which in turn justified the pornography/access restrictions.
• Constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(1): The panel followed United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 574 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1081 (2024) (foreclosing Commerce Clause challenges to § 922(g)), and United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458, 471–72 (5th Cir. 2024) (foreclosing facial Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1) post-Bruen).

Legal Reasoning and Application

1) Guidelines: Crime of Violence Enhancement

The defendant argued that Texas aggravated robbery is not a “crime of violence” because the Guidelines purportedly require a causal nexus between taking and force. Reviewing for plain error (no objection below), the panel deemed the argument foreclosed by Wickware, which held Texas robbery qualifies under § 4B1.2(a)(2). Because binding circuit authority squarely rejected the “causal nexus” theory, there was no error and thus no plain error in applying the § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) enhancement.

2) Guidelines: Acceptance of Responsibility

The PSR initially awarded a three-point reduction under § 3E1.1, but the addendum removed it after law enforcement reviewed jail video visits and calls indicating sexual activity involving the defendant and his 15-year-old daughter, as well as the defendant’s admissions to multiple January 2024 incidents. The district court adopted the addendum and overruled the defense objection.

On appeal, the panel applied the Fifth Circuit’s highly deferential standard—reversal only if “without foundation.” The court emphasized that continuing criminal conduct can outweigh a guilty plea and truthful admissions, and it need not be related to the offense of conviction. The record supported an inference that the defendant elicited or responded positively to the sexual displays—especially in light of his admissions to physical sexual contact. That provided a sufficient foundation to deny the § 3E1.1 reduction.

3) Supervised Release Conditions

The court reviewed the pornography ban and the computer/internet preauthorization requirement for abuse of discretion under § 3583(d).

• Reasonable relation to statutory factors: The conditions must be reasonably related to the nature and characteristics of the offense or the defendant, deterrence, protection of the public, or correctional treatment. The panel reiterated that courts may look beyond the offense of conviction and consider other supported conduct. Here, the record showed multiple recent incidents of sexual misconduct with a minor and a sexually explicit live video call. This created “some connection” between pornography and internet access and the defendant’s behavior, satisfying Fields.
• No greater deprivation than reasonably necessary: The pornography ban and internet-use preauthorization were calibrated to address specific risks demonstrated by the record. The internet condition required preapproval for categories of use—not per-session approval—mitigating overbreadth and distinguishing it from a “blanket ban” concerns in Tang. The court stressed that § 3583(d) does not require the least restrictive condition imaginable; only that the condition not impose a greater deprivation than reasonably necessary (Duke).
• Policy statements and inferable rationale: Although the district court did not separately articulate reasons, the Fifth Circuit permitted affirmance because the justifications were clear from the PSR/addendum and sentencing record (Iverson).

The panel distinguished Salazar and Huor because those cases lacked evidence of pornography use or current predatory behavior and involved remote, single sex offenses tied to a failure-to-register conviction. By contrast, Arredondo’s recent, ongoing misconduct—including a live-streamed sexual interaction—supplied a compelling nexus to both pornography and internet-related conditions. It also cited § 2251(a), Nichols (unpublished), and Gould to underscore that live-streamed sexual activity is treated in federal law and guidelines as a “visual depiction,” bolstering the link between the conduct and pornography-related restrictions.

Impact and Forward-Looking Significance

• Supervised release in non-sex cases: The opinion reinforces that district courts may impose sex-related conditions in non-sex-offense cases when there is reliable record evidence of sexual misconduct, including uncharged and post-plea conduct, so long as § 3583(d)’s requirements are met and the reasons are discernible from the record.
• Live-streamed sexual content as “visual depiction”: By leaning on § 2251(a), Nichols, and Gould, the panel signals that courts may analogize live video calls to “visual depictions” of child pornography when assessing the nexus for pornography and internet restrictions. Expect increased reliance on digital, real-time communications evidence (e.g., jail tablets, FaceTime) to justify conditions.
• Acceptance-of-responsibility denials: The case underscores that even when a defendant pleads guilty and admits the firearm offense, new criminal conduct—particularly serious conduct involving minors—can defeat § 3E1.1 reductions. Defense counsel should prioritize scrupulous post-plea conduct and address any allegations promptly and thoroughly.
• Scope of internet restrictions: The Fifth Circuit continues to scrutinize overly broad internet conditions when there is no nexus to computer use, but where live-streamed misconduct is involved, category-based preauthorization is likely to withstand review, especially when it stops short of a blanket ban and allows tailored access.
• Foreclosure of constitutional attacks on § 922(g)(1): Jones and Diaz keep Commerce Clause and facial Second Amendment avenues closed within the Fifth Circuit, focusing litigation in this space on as-applied challenges and factual interstate nexus issues not present here.
• Unpublished but instructive: While nonprecedential, the opinion offers a roadmap for how evidence in a PSR addendum can drive both guideline outcomes and supervised-release tailoring in cases where sensitive, digital-age sexual misconduct surfaces late in the sentencing process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Crime of violence” under the Guidelines: A term of art in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2. Some offenses qualify categorically (e.g., “robbery” as enumerated). The Fifth Circuit’s Wickware confirms Texas robbery fits this definition; no special causal nexus between taking and force is required.
• Acceptance of responsibility (§ 3E1.1): A potential 2–3 level reduction for defendants who clearly demonstrate acceptance. A guilty plea is important but not dispositive. Post-plea criminal conduct—whether related to the charged offense or not—can negate acceptance.
• Standards of review:
  • Plain error: Very deferential; applies when an issue was not preserved below.
  • Acceptance of responsibility: “Even more deferential than clearly erroneous”; reversal only if the decision lacks any foundation.
  • Supervised release conditions: Abuse of discretion; conditions must meet § 3583(d)’s criteria.
• Supervised release conditions—§ 3583(d): A condition must (1) reasonably relate to statutory sentencing factors (offense/defendant characteristics, deterrence, public protection, rehabilitation), (2) not impose a greater deprivation of liberty than necessary, and (3) be consistent with Sentencing Commission policy statements. Courts can consider uncharged or unrelated conduct supported by the record.
• Live-streamed “visual depiction”: Federal child pornography and production statutes encompass live transmissions of sexual activity involving minors. Courts may treat real-time video calls as “visual depictions,” which can support pornography and internet-use restrictions in supervised release when such conduct appears in the record.

Conclusion

United States v. Arredondo solidifies several practical points in Fifth Circuit sentencing and supervised release practice:

• Texas robbery remains a crime of violence for Guidelines purposes, foreclosing arguments requiring a special causal nexus under § 4B1.2.
• Post-plea criminal conduct—particularly credible evidence of sexual misconduct with a minor—can defeat a § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction even in a non-sex-offense case.
• Sex-related supervised-release conditions such as pornography bans and internet-use preauthorization are sustainable when the record shows a concrete nexus to recent sexual misconduct, including live-streamed interactions that resemble child pornography, and when the restrictions are reasonably tailored to statutory goals.
• Commerce Clause and facial Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g)(1) remain foreclosed in the Fifth Circuit.

While unpublished, the opinion meaningfully illustrates how modern, digital forms of sexual misconduct can influence guideline calculations and support sex-related supervised release conditions in cases where the offense of conviction is unrelated. It also serves as a cautionary note to defendants: post-plea conduct matters, and district courts may draw reasonable inferences from live-stream evidence and admissions in the PSR to tailor conditions that protect the public, deter further crimes, and promote rehabilitation.