United States of America v. Joseph Matthew Ketsenburg

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1639
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Joseph Matthew Ketsenburg
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: November 13, 2025
Filed: November 18, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Ketsenburg served his prison sentence for a child pornography
conviction and began serving his lifetime supervised release sentence in March 2018.
In May, the probation officer petitioned to revoke, alleging multiple violations and
Ketesenburg’s false denial, lack of remorse, and boasting that he showed no
deception at a recent polygraph test because he believed he had done nothing wrong.

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court1 revoked supervised release, imposed a 10 month prison sentence,
reimposed a lifetime of supervised release, and imposed a new special condition
requiring Ketsenburg to submit to testing at the discretion of the PO to ensure
compliance with supervised release or a treatment program. Ketsenburg did not
appeal. In February 2020, the PO moved to modify that special condition to provide
that the testing requirement is not limited to ensuring compliance. Ketsenburg
waived a modification hearing and agreed to that modification.
In February 2025, Ketsenburg moved to modify his supervised release
conditions to eliminate PO discretion to require periodic polygraph testing, arguing
that special condition is not authorized by the Guidelines and continued testing no
longer serves the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and requesting an evidentiary hearing.
He now appeals the district court’s order denying his motion. After careful review
of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude the district court did
not abuse its substantial discretion in denying the motion. See United States v.
Trimble, 969 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Ketsenburg’s pending
motion to supplement the record on appeal.
______________________________
1The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --