United States of America v. Joel Rich

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-2043
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Joel Rich
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
____________
Submitted: January 17, 2025
Filed: April 1, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Joel Rich appeals after the district court1 revoked his supervised release,
sentenced him to four months imprisonment, and added a new special condition of
1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Northern District of Iowa.

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
supervised release preventing all contact with Mary Kisling. He appeals the
imposition of this new special condition.
Rich’s underlying conviction is for the production of child pornography
involving a fifteen-year-old girl in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) & (e) and 2(a)
& (b). While on supervised release, his probation officer learned that Rich
frequented Kisling’s home when her three minor children, a sixteen-year-old girl
and two boys, were present. This activity violated two conditions of supervised
release: (1) no contact with children under the age of eighteen and (2) no presence
at places where children under the age of eighteen congregate. When the probation
officer questioned Kisling, she falsely told the officer that Rich never visited while
her children were present.
Rich admitted to the foregoing violations as well as to the violations of
associating with a felon and failure to truthfully answer inquiries. He did not object
to the imposition of the special condition of no contact with Kisling.
We review for plain error an unobjected-to condition of supervised release.
United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475, 478 (8th Cir. 2010). “Plain error occurs if
the district court deviates from a legal rule, the error is clear under current law, and
the error affects the defendant’s substantial rights.” Id. at 479 (quoting United States
v. Crose, 284 F.3d 911, 912 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)).
After a thorough review of the record, we find no plain error with the special
condition. It is a corollary to the valid conditions of no contact with minors and no
presence at a place where children congregate, and Kisling both facilitated the
violation of these conditions and concealed the violation from the authorities. See
id. at 481 (condition that the defendant have no contact with minors is adequately
supported when the defendant has a conviction for a child pornography offense).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --