United States v. Ullmann, No. 14-3148 (10th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant Ronald Ullmann pled guilty to making a false statement. The charge arose from sexually explicit written conversations between Ullmann and an undercover FBI agent posing online as a thirteen-year-old minor. Ullmann was sentenced to 60 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The district court imposed twelve conditions of supervised release which restricted Internet use. When Ullmann was released from prison, the special conditions took effect. Shortly thereafter, however, the U.S. Probation Office filed a motion to modify the conditions of his supervised release, claiming technological advances necessitated the modifications. The modifications replaced the twelve conditions restricting Internet use with a single condition. Although the language of the modified condition stated that it authorized “restrictions and/or prohibitions” on the use of the Internet and Internet-capable devices, the Probation Office’s manual acknowledged that “Tenth Circuit case law did not allow for an absolute restriction from computer access, except possibly in the most extreme case. . . . Offenders are permitted to use a computer and access the Internet, with the clear understanding that their computer activities are being monitored.” Ullmann had no objection to continued restrictions and monitoring. Instead, he narrowly objected to the “prohibitions” on his access to the Internet and use of the panoply of devices listed in the proposed single condition. He also objected that some of the devices listed in the modified condition, such as “Internet appliance devices,” were neither intended for nor capable of use for interpersonal communication. At the hearing on the proposed modification, the district court orally clarified that the “restrictions and/or prohibitions” language only restricted (and did not prohibit) use of various Internet-capable devices. Additionally, the court explained that the restrictions covered only certain Internet-capable devices by stating that Ullmann “has not been prohibited from using his computer, cell phone or any other electronic appliance with internet access. Rather, [Ullmann]’s use of these items may be restricted in order to monitor his post-release conduct.” In its subsequent written order, the district court repeated these conclusions verbatim, overruled Ullmann’s objections, and imposed the modified condition. Ullmann appealed. The Tenth Circuit affirmed because the district court's oral pronouncement prior to modification, clarifying that it was restricting, rather than prohibiting, Ullmann’s use of the Internet and Internet-capable devices, saved the otherwise deficient condition.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.