USA v. Lang et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
BILLY RAY LANG, JR.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-cr-00001-SLG
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO MODIFY SUPERVISED RELEASE
Before the Court at Docket 209 is defendant Billy Ray Lang, Jr.’s Motion to
Delete 	Fourth 	and 	Fifth 	Special 	Conditions 	of 	Supervised 	Release. 	The
government did not file a response. 	The U.S. Probation Office filed a sealed
memorandum at Docket 212. 	No hearing has been requested, and Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 32.1(c) does not require a hearing because the relief sought
is favorable to Mr. Lang and the government did not file an objection.
I. 	Relevant facts
In June 2016, the Court sentenced Mr. Lang to 46 months imprisonment
followed by a five-year term of supervised release after Mr. Lang pleaded guilty to
drug conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy.1 	At the time Mr. Lang was
sentenced, he had been charged in Alaska state court in March 2016 with two
1 Docket 118.
Case 3:15-cr-00001-SLG-MMS Document 213 Filed 04/22/22 Page 1 of 5

Case No. 3:15-cr-00001-SLG, United States v. Lang
Order Re Motion to Modify Supervised Release
Page 2 of 5
counts of Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the First Degree and two counts of Sexual
Abuse of a Minor in the Second Degree.2 	The sex abuse charges involved
allegations that in approximately 2013 and 2014, Mr. Lang had sexually assaulted
his three-year old sister and his eight-year old niece.3 In July 2021, years after his
federal sentencing, the State of Alaska added a charge of Coercion in his sexual
abuse of a minor case.4 The same day the Coercion charge was added, Mr. Lang
pleaded guilty in state court to the Coercion charge, and the Sexual Abuse of a
Minor charges were dismissed.5
As recommended by the U.S. Probation Office,6 the Court imposed a special
condition requiring Mr. Lang to participate in a sex offender assessment and
treatment and a special condition requiring no contact with minors without prior
permission of a probation officer.7 The Court did not make special findings related
to the no-contact condition, and it does not appear that Mr. Lang objected to the
special conditions when they were imposed. Mr. Lang now seeks to remove these
two special conditions of supervised release. Mr. Lang contends that because he
2 State of Alaska v. Billy Ray Lang, Case No. 3AN-15-08390CR; Docket 115 at 16–18 (under
seal). The state sex abuse charges were initially filed in September 2015, then were dismissed
in January 2016, and then were refiled in March 2016.
3 Docket 212 at 1; Docket 115 at 17–18.
4 State of Alaska v. Billy Ray Lang, Case No. 3AN-15-08390CR.
5 State of Alaska v. Billy Ray Lang, Case No. 3AN-15-08390CR; Docket 209-1.
6 Docket 106 at 2–3 (under seal).
7 Docket 118 at 5, ¶¶ 4–5.
Case 3:15-cr-00001-SLG-MMS Document 213 Filed 04/22/22 Page 2 of 5

Case No. 3:15-cr-00001-SLG, United States v. Lang
Order Re Motion to Modify Supervised Release
Page 3 of 5
was not convicted of a sex offense, the special conditions are now unnecessary,
highly restrictive and involved a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably
necessary.8
II. 	Analysis
A 	district 	court 	has 	broad 	discretion 	to 	impose 	special 	conditions 	of
supervised release so long as the conditions are reasonably related to deterrence,
protection of the public, and/or rehabilitation of the defendant.9 	Moreover, a
special condition does not have to be related to the crime of conviction, “because
the sentencing judge is statutorily required ‘to look forward in time to crimes that
may be committed in the future’ by the convicted defendant.”10 	A district court is
“not restricted to imposing conditions that would prevent further crimes of the
defendant that were identical to his offense”; instead, the search condition must
only be reasonably related to preventing and deterring further crimes.11
Here, the challenged special conditions continue to have an adequate nexus
to the sentencing goals of deterrence or rehabilitation of the defendant and/or
protection of the public. 	Although the condition does not relate directly to Mr.
8 Docket 209 at 4. Mr. Lang does not assert that the condition prohibiting contact with minors
impedes his right to associate with any intimate family member, an assertion which would trigger
an analysis pursuant to United States v. Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir. 2012).
9 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1), (2).
10 United States v. Blinkinsop, 606 F.3d 1110, 1119 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v.
Wise, 391 F.3d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004)).
11 United States v. Bare, 806 F.3d 1011, 1019, n. 6 (9th Cir. 2015).
Case 3:15-cr-00001-SLG-MMS Document 213 Filed 04/22/22 Page 3 of 5

Case No. 3:15-cr-00001-SLG, United States v. Lang
Order Re Motion to Modify Supervised Release
Page 4 of 5
Lang’s drug conspiracy or money laundering conspiracy offenses, it is reasonably
related to the 2016 state charges involving allegations of sex abuse against two
prepubescent family members, and to Mr. Lang’s resolution of that case by
pleading to Coercion less than one year ago.12 	The U.S. Probation Office has
determined that Mr. Lang “pos[es] a risk of harm to children he may have contact
with.”13 Indeed, Mr. Lang is on parole with the State of Alaska and is required by
the terms of his parole to obtain a sex offender evaluation and treatment and to
have no contact with minors.14 	Notably, Mr. Lang has not yet completed a sex-
offender 	assessment 	to 	determine 	what, 	if 	any, 	sex-offender 	treatment 	is
needed.15
The Court finds that the supervised release conditions are not highly
restrictive and do not involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably
necessary. The current treatment condition requires an assessment and treatment
as directed by his probation officer. 	The current no-contact condition does not
prevent Mr. Lang from ever having contact with minors. Instead, it requires him to
first get the approval of his probation officer. 	Until such time as Mr. Lang is
12 State of Alaska v. Billy Ray Lang, Case No. 3AN-15-08390CR.
13 Docket 212 at 2.
14 Docket 212 at 2.
15 Docket 212 at 2.
Case 3:15-cr-00001-SLG-MMS Document 213 Filed 04/22/22 Page 4 of 5

Case No. 3:15-cr-00001-SLG, United States v. Lang
Order Re Motion to Modify Supervised Release
Page 5 of 5
assessed as not needing treatment or having completed treatment, and as not
posing a threat to minors, the challenged conditions are appropriate.
In determining whether to modify the conditions of supervised release, a
court considers certain 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.16 	Here, the Court finds that
the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of
Mr. Lang, the need to afford adequate deterrence, and the need to protect the
public from further crimes do not support the requested modification of supervised
release. The Court also finds that maintaining the current special conditions does
not modify the kinds of sentence established for the crime of conviction, does not
cause unwarranted sentencing disparities, and does not affect restitution because
none was ordered in this case. 	The Court concludes that removal of the sex
offender assessment and treatment condition and the no-contact with minors
condition is not warranted at this time.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the motion at Docket 209 is
DENIED without prejudice to renew should further information become available
after Mr. Lang has completed a sex-offender evaluation.
DATED this 22nd day of April, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2) (requiring a court to consider “the factors set forth in section
3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7)”).
Case 3:15-cr-00001-SLG-MMS Document 213 Filed 04/22/22 Page 5 of 5