USA v. Daniel Joseph Touizer

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10246
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANIEL JOSEPH TOUIZER,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:17-cr-60286-BB-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10246 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2023 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10246
Before WILLIAM PRYOR , Chief Judge, and B RASHER and ABUDU, Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Touizer appeals the denial of his motion to reduce or
modify a condition of his supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2),
imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire and
mail fraud in a fraudulent investment scheme, id. § 1349. Touizer
argues that the condition, which permits the probation officer to
inspect his computer equipment and install systems to monitor his
computer use, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. He also
argues that the computer-examination condition creates an unwar-
ranted sentencing disparity with his codefendants, who were not
subject to the same condition, and that the district court should
have tailored the condition to be less invasive. We affirm.
Insofar as Touizer challenges the constitutionality of the
computer-examination condition, Cordero controls. Section
3583(e)(2) “cannot be used to challenge the legality or constitution-
ality of supervised release conditions” because those arguments
“are reserved properly for direct appeal or a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 mo-
tion to vacate sentence.” United States v. Cordero, 7 F.4th 1058, 1070
(11th Cir. 2021). The computer-examination condition was im-
posed in Touizer’s original written judgment and in the judgment
imposing sentence upon revocation of supervised release, yet he
raised no challenge to the constitutionality of the condition on ap-
peal from either judgment. He cannot do so now. See id.
USCA11 Case: 23-10246 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2023 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-10246 Opinion of the Court 3
We also disagree with Touizer that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his request to modify the computer-exam-
ination condition because it found that the condition was “appro-
priate.” See id. Touizer resumed operating one of the businesses he
used to commit the underlying fraud only one month after he was
released from prison to serve his term of supervised release. After
learning that Touizer also had contacted several victims of his
scheme—many of whom were elderly and had been robbed of
their life savings—by email, the district court found it necessary to
impose an additional special condition prohibiting him from con-
tacting the victims. Although Touizer argues that the computer-ex-
amination condition creates an unwarranted sentencing disparity
with his codefendants, Touizer was the scheme’s undisputed
“leader and the organizer” who “not only started these companies,
but [was] the chief executive officer,” so he failed to establish that
he was similarly situated with his codefendants. See United States v.
Dixon, 901 F.3d 1322, 1351 (11th Cir. 2018).
We AFFIRM the denial of Touizer’s motion to reduce or
modify his supervised release conditions.
USCA11 Case: 23-10246 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 12/29/2023 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --