United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 23-50449 FILED September 6, 2024 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus Christopher Dallas Nelson,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:22-CR-154-1 ______________________________ Before Richman, Chief Judge, and Oldham and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: Christopher Dallas Nelson pleaded guilty to one count of possession of visual depictions of sexual activities by minors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). Nelson appeals his sentence, including the terms of his supervised release. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand in part. I. Nelson pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) revealed Case: 23-50449 Document: 62-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2024

No. 23-50449

Nelson possessed a total of 3,699 images, including 196 images of Nelson’s seven-year-old daughter and 25 images of his five-year-old daughter. Nelson admitted he downloaded child pornography and took the images of his older daughter. Nelson refused to admit he produced images of his younger daughter, including images of sexual contact. He also attempted to obstruct justice by hiding a laptop and a cellphone containing evidence of his crimes. Nelson’s total offense level under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines was 43. Nelson filed a series of written and oral objections to the PSR. The district court orally sentenced Nelson to 240 months in prison, a $250,000 fine, additional restitution and special assessments totaling $10,100, and supervised release for life. The court imposed mandatory and standard conditions of supervised release outlined “in the standing order of November 2016.” ROA.100. The district court then added discretionary special conditions barring Nelson’s access to the Internet. Nelson objected to the special conditions. The court’s written judgment contained less severe versions of the Internet-related special conditions. Nelson timely appealed. II. Nelson raises three issues on appeal. First, he claims the district court abused its discretion in denying him a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Second, he contends that the written judgment conflicts with the sentence orally imposed by the district court in Nelson’s presence. Finally, he argues the orally pronounced special conditions banning his use of the Internet constitute an abuse of discretion because they are not narrowly tailored and imposed a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary. We address each issue in turn. First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nelson a sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility. We review the district court’s responsibility-reduction denial under “a standard even more

2 Case: 23-50449 Document: 62-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/06/2024

No. 2