Joseph Castellano has struggled to comply with supervised release conditions since his 144-month sentence for transporting child sexual abuse material. Over six years, he has violated his supervised release five times, leading to multiple periods of reincarceration. At his most recent revocation hearing, the government presented testimony from his long-term treatment provider, Amber Hill, who recommended a complete ban on pornography access after observing his deteriorating condition.
Chief Judge Diaz wrote that Hill provided crucial individualized evidence linking pornography to Castellano's criminal patterns and treatment failures. 'Hill testified that Castellano's "use of either nude images or pornographic material are barriers to him to be able to make any progress in treatment,"' Diaz explained, noting that Hill had worked with Castellano for six years. The treatment provider testified that 'any nudity or pornography ignites a chain reaction of events within the offense cycle in which he will start to download, view an insatiable amount of this material.'
The court emphasized Hill's clinical observations about Castellano's escalating compulsive behaviors. As Diaz noted, Hill testified that 'from 2018 to [2024, she'd] seen that [Castellano's] behaviors have increased in intensity and in duration in his use of pornography.' The treatment provider explained that Castellano's viewing habits had progressed from legal material to child sexual abuse material, creating what she termed 'sexual-hyperlized behaviors' that interfered with his rehabilitation.
This case arose from a complex procedural history involving multiple appeals. Three years ago, the Fourth Circuit reversed an earlier pornography ban in Castellano I because the government failed to provide individualized evidence. U.S. Senior District Judge Raymond Jackson had originally imposed the restriction, but the appellate court found it unsupported by testimony from Castellano's treatment providers. The court specifically criticized the 'lack of evidence' given the condition's 'broad sweep.'
Castellano argued that Hill's testimony was categorically based rather than individualized, pointing to her admission that she would never recommend pornography access for anyone convicted of child sexual abuse material offenses. The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument, noting that Hill 'provided an individualized assessment for why a legal pornography restriction was necessary for Castellano' based on her clinical observations. Diaz distinguished the case from Castellano I, writing that 'the district court relied on individualized evidence, not categorical reasoning.'
The appeals court also rejected Castellano's mandate rule argument, which claimed the earlier decision permanently barred such restrictions. Diaz clarified that Castellano I 'applied to the particular facts before the district court at the time' and noted that 'we never said that a special condition prohibiting Castellano's access to legal pornography was forever off-limits.' The court emphasized that circumstances had changed since the earlier appeal, including new violations and worsening clinical assessments.
The decision reinforces the Fourth Circuit's approach to supervised release conditions requiring individualized evidence rather than blanket restrictions. Unlike the earlier case where the government relied on general assertions, here the court found sufficient clinical testimony linking pornography access to Castellano's specific treatment challenges and escalating violations. The ruling provides guidance for practitioners on the type of expert testimony needed to support restrictions on legal activities during supervised release.