USA v. Brown

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
EL DORADO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. 	CASE NUMBER: 1:25-CR-010014-001
CALVIN THOMAS BROWN
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE
TO PERMIT MONITORED ACCESS VIA CELL PHONE
Before the Court is Defendant Calvin Thomas Brown’s Motion to Modify Conditions of
Release to Permit Monitored Internet Access Via Cell Phone, brought by counsel, Assistant
Federal Public Defender Alex Wynn. 	(ECF 36.) 	According to the motion, the Government
objects to any modification of the supervised release conditions. 	Haley Hudson, the probation
officer supervising Brown, has submitted a letter to the Court setting forth the Probation Office’s
basis for objecting to the modification. 	United States District Judge Susan O. Hickey has referred
the Motion to Modify to the undersigned. 	(ECF. 37.)
In his motion, Brown requests modification of the present restriction on his access to and
use of devices with internet capabilities. 	Brown “currently utilizes a cell phone with an internet
limiting service for which he pays a fee, with allows him limited Wi-Fi access for work-related
needs.” 	(ECF. 36.) 	This usage complies with the release conditions which permit him limited
internet access only for employment purposes. 	Brown complains, “[t]he current system in place
causes significant delays in receipt of permitted text messages from his immediate family, as well
as delayed text messages from his supervising United States Probation Officer.” 	(Id.) 	Brown
Case 1:25-cr-10014-SOH Document 38 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
seeks access to a monitoring system utilized primarily for post-conviction supervision for Brown’s
“personal everyday use in addition to work purposes.” 	(Id.) 	Brown has entered a guilty plea on
one charge of transportation of child pornography, but the Court has not sentenced him. 	(Id.)
The Court DENIES the Motion to Modify. 	First, the allowance for limited access to
internet service for Brown is for “employment purposes.” 	There is no suggestion in the Motion
that Brown’s employment is being hampered in any manner by the current service. 	Second,
Brown does allege that there has been a delay in the receipt of text messages from the U.S.
Probation Office, however that Office has indicated that “any such delays do not appear to impede
pretrial supervision.” 	Accordingly, Brown has presented no valid basis to warrant modification
of this release condition.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of December, 2025.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
Honorable Spencer G. Singleton
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cr-10014-SOH Document 38 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>