United States v. Boehm (Middle District of Pa. (M.D. PA) 2025)

Case details
Full caption
United States v. Brian Boehm
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania (M.D. PA)
Decided
2025
Disposition
Dismissed
IN v. ■ ■ ■ ■ •• ■ ■• ■ ■ •••••••••••• ■ ••••••••••••••••• ■• ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ •••••••••••• f'J_ is of to A. on in 18 On 6, 52, On 60-1 Case 3:18-cr-00312-JKM Document 64 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 9THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No. 3:18cr312 (Judge Munley) BRIAN BOEHM, Defendant ............................................................................................................ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ORDER AND NOW, to wit , this .::S.:- day of December 2025, it hereby ORDERED as follows: 1) This order contains discussion inaccurate legal arguments that appear be generated by artificial intelligence (" Al'') using legitimate case citations . 2) On July 23, 2019 , Defendant Brian Boehm entered a guilty plea before the Honorable Richard Caputo one count of attempted online enticement of a minor violation of U . S.C . § 2422(b). (Doc. 32 , Guilty Plea). 3) December 2019 , Judge Caputo sentenced defendant to one hundred twenty (120) months of incarceration with ten (10) years of supervised release . (Doc. Judgment). 4) November 26 , 2025, the Clerk of Court docketed defendant Brian Boehm's "motion for clarification of supervised release conditions , " (Doc. 60) , proposed order, (Doc. ) , · summary of argument , (Doc. 60-2 , ECF
p. in 61 ). In in on in 61 3; by is an on in 18 p. 6). in 3). in ." 61 3)Case 3:18-cr-00312-JKM Document 64 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 95-8) , and statement of compliance and good faith , (Doc . 60-3). The Clerk of Court also docketed several additional filings as a brief support. (Doc . 5) Boehm's motion , he advises that he has been Bureau of Prisons (" BOP " ) prerelease custody since July 23, 2024 and was scheduled to begin supervised release November 24 , 2025. (Doc . 60 at 2). 6) According to Boehm , he has been permitted to use an Apple iPhone and Apple MacBook Pro laptop while BOP prerelease custody. (Doc. 60 at 2 ; Doc. at ECF p . Doc. 61-2, Def. Ex . A). 7) Pursuant to the judgment entered Judge Caputo , Boehm subject to additional term of supervised release providing that he " must allow the probation officer to install computer monitoring software any computer (as defined U.S.C. § 1030(e)(1))" that he uses . (Doc. 52 at ECF 8) Additionally, per the defendant, the United States Probation Office has instructed him that compliance with this provision requires him to replace his in-use Apple devices , pay for third-party monitoring software or services , and comply with "additional technology restrictions not stated 1 the [j]udgment. " (Doc. 60 at 1 Although the " additional technology restrictions " referenced Boehm ' s motion are vague , such restrictions may include a possible ban on the use of " content creation software (See Doc . at . Boehm specifically references the Adobe Creative Suite and an internet-based 2
in by in v. 291 3, 7). an in on in 18 in on "). Case 3:18-cr-00312-JKM Document 64 Filed 12/03/25 Page 4 of 912) The Al tool possibly used was sophisticated enough to include pinpoint citations to precedential Third Circuit authority. 13) Fortunate l y for Boehm , the cases cited his motion are very real decisions the Third Circuit Court of Appeals . 14) Unfortunately for Boehm, these cases are misrepresented his motion and his motion also contains false quotations from these opinions. 15) For example , Boehm cites United States Helena , 906 F.3d 288 , (3d Cir. 2018) for the proposition that " only the court may impose conditions of supervised release[,]" not a probation officer . (Doc. 60 at 2 a . Although this not inaccurate statement of the law , Helena did not involve a probation officer i mposing conditions of supervised release . Rather , Helena , the Third Circuit Court of Appeals determined that restrictions a criminal defendant's computer and internet usage were contradictory and more restrictive than necessary for the purposes of supervised release. 906 F.3d at 291-94 . Those conditions were imposed by the trial judge, not the United States Probation Office. As further noted the opinion , 2 See U .S .C . § 3583(a) (The court , imposing a sentence to a term of imprisonment for a felony or a misdemeanor , may include as a part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed a term of supervised release after imprisonment. . . 4
on 1.fi. 3d 1913). in in ." by an an on 1.fi_ in in on in rd Case 3:18-cr-00312-JKM Document 64 Filed 12/03/25 Page 5 of 9the trial judge provided " the probation office no guidance the sorts of internet use that it should approve. " at 293 . 16) Defendant also cites United States v . Albertson , 645 F. , 197 (3d Cir . 2011) for the proposition that " [p]robation officers implement judicial conditions but lack authority to expand them. " (Doc. 60 at Later the mo t ion , defendant argues that , Albertson , " the Third Circuit reinforced : Probation officers ' lack authority ' to expand judicially - imposed conditions (Doc. 60 at 7) (asterisks omitted) . a . Albertson did not involve a probation officer expanding conditions of supervised release set a judge. Rather , Albertson involved appellate determination that a trial judge imposed overbroad internet ban and monitoring requirement for a defendant supervised release. at 197 - 200. Furthermore , to the extent that defendant attempted to quote Albertson his motion , the phrase " lack author i ty " does not appear t he version of the opinion published Westlaw and the Federal Reporter , Th i Series . 17) Boehm also cites United States v . Miller , 594 F.3d 172 , 178 (3d Cir. 2010) for the proposition that "financial obligations , including monitoring fee s must be explicitly authorized by the court. " (Doc . 60 at 3) (asterisks 5
." in 3d a. is, on on on on in in an Case 3:18-cr-00312-JKM Document 64 Filed 12/03/25 Page 6 of 9omitted). Defendant further cites Miller for the argument: "When Congress and courts intend to impose costs , they say so explicitly (Doc. 60 at 4). Additionally, later the motion, defendant states that, "In Miller, the Third Circuit held unequivocally: 'The district court must explicitly impose' supervision costs. " (Doc. 60 at 7) (citing "Miller, 594 F. at 178") (asterisks omitted) . Sure enough, Miller does not stand for the points of law the defendant says it does. That Miller did not involve computer monitoring fees imposed a criminal defendant facing internet restrictions supervised release. Instead, Miller addressed the imposition of broad ban internet access imposed a defendant facing a lifetime term of supervised release and whether the defendant waived any right to challenge that sentence . Miller , 594 F.3d at 177-189. The "quotes" from Miller Boehm's motion are also false. 18) Therefore , what would be interesting twist, the defendant has possibly misused the internet to argue that he should not have to use certain devices to access the internet or be imposed costs for internet monitoring by the United States Probation Office as part of his supervised release . 6
by v. No. *1 (MD. Pa. ., (EPa10., PaJ. ). On in in v. (MD. v. *1 (D.) Case 3:18-cr-00312-JKM Document 64 Filed 12/03/25 Page 7 of 919) Courts within the appellate jurisdiction of the Third Circuit have sanctioned lawyers and pro se litigants for citing to non-existent legal authority generated Al. Allbaugh Univ. of Scranton, 3:24-CV- 2237 , 2025 WL 2484188 , at . Aug. 28, 2025) (Mehalchick, J.); Bevins v . Colgate-Palmolive Co No . CV 25-576 , 2025 WL 1085695 , at *6 .D . . Apr. , 2025) (Baylson , J.) ; Bunce v . Visual Tech . Innovations, Inc No . CV 23 - 1740, 2025 WL 662398, at *4 (E.D . . Feb. 27, 2025) (Scott , 20) what seems to be a daily basis , judges other jurisdictions have sanctioned lawyers and pro se litigants for including other types of suspected Al hallucinations their filings , such as misrepresentations of the law and false quotes from reported cases. See e.g., The Doc App, Inc. Leafwell, Inc., No . 2: 25-CV-838-SPC-NPM , 2025 WL 3288251 , at *6 . Fla. Nov . 26 , 2025) (Chappell , J. ) (imposing several sanctions , including a referral of a potential Al-using attorney to the Florida Bar); Andre, Warden, FCI Danbury, No. 3:24 - CV-01295 (VDO), 2025 WL 3281732 , at . Conn . Nov. 25 , 2025) (Oliver , J (dismissing with prejudice a pro se post-judgment motion stemming from a petition for writ of habeas corpus). 7
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access