govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_19-cr-00053-0

1 
 
                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
                    DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
V.                CASE NO. 3:19-CR-53(RNC) 
SHAYNE SHAYER 
 
    RULING AND ORDER 
 
     Mr. Shayer is serving a 10-year term of supervised release 
following his conviction for downloading child pornography in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2).  He has 
moved for reconsideration of an order denying without prejudice 
his motion to modify special condition 13 of his supervised 
release conditions.  The motion for reconsideration is granted.  
On reconsideration, special condition 13 will be amended as set 
forth below contingent on Mr. Shayer consenting to the amendment 
in full.   
Background  
     Mr. Shayer has been on supervised release for   
approximately four years.  During this time he has been 
gainfully employed as a professional hairdresser.  He currently 
earns a substantial annual income providing hairdressing 
services to adults by appointment at a small salon.  He works 
alongside the owner of the salon with whom he has a business 
arrangement.  He would like to be able to increase his income by 
providing services to his clients’ minor children.  On this 
basis, he asks that special condition 13, which prohibits him 
from employment involving contact with minors, be modified to 
read:  
Case 3:19-cr-00053-RNC     Document 149     Filed 04/02/26     Page 1 of 7
2 
 
     The defendant may provide hairdressing services to minor 
children.  The defendant shall not provide hairdressing 
services to unaccompanied minors under any circumstances.   
     The Probation Office has no objection to Mr. Shayer 
providing services to a client’s minor child provided he  
informs the client of the nature of his criminal conviction.    
Mr. Shayer fears that informing clients of the conviction could 
lead them to stop using his services because of the stigma 
attached to sex offenses. 
     To resolve this problem, the Government suggests that Mr. 
Shayer be permitted to provide services to minor children if the 
Probation Office notifies the owner of the salon that his 
freedom to have contact with minors is limited and the owner 
commits to be present any time a minor is scheduled to receive 
hairdressing services.  Otherwise, Mr. Shayer could provide 
services to a minor only if he disclosed the nature of his 
conviction to the minor’s parent or legal guardian and the 
parent or legal guardian agreed to remain in the salon 
throughout the appointment.   
     Mr. Shayer responds that modifying special condition 13 to 
allow him to provide services to minors with a parent or 
guardian present, without additional requirements of disclosure 
or supervision, would adequately safeguard the public. 
Discussion  
     Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583((d)(1), a court may order as a 
condition of supervised release any of the discretionary 
conditions of probation listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b), and “any 
other condition it considers to be appropriate,” to the extent 
the conditions are reasonably related to the nature and 
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics 
of the defendant (as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)) and the 
Case 3:19-cr-00053-RNC     Document 149     Filed 04/02/26     Page 2 of 7
3 
 
need to provide adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, protect 
the public from further crimes of the defendant, and provide the 
defendant with needed educational or vocational training, 
medical care or other correctional treatment in the most 
effective manner (as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)((2)(B), (C) 
and (D)).  A condition may “involve[] no greater deprivation of 
liberty than is reasonably necessary” to serve these purposes, 
18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2), and must be consistent with policy 
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 
3583(d)(3).  
     Section 3563(b)(5) of Title 18, governing discretionary 
conditions of probation, authorizes a court to require an 
individual
 to “refrain .  .  . from engaging in a specified 
occupation . . . bearing a reasonably direct relationship between to 
the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in such a specified 
occupation . .  . only to a stated degree or under stated 
circumstances.”     
     The Sentencing Guidelines address occupational restrictions in  
§ 5F1.5, which provides:  
(a) The court may impose a condition of probation or supervised 
release prohibiting the defendant from engaging in a specified 
occupation, business, or profession, or limiting the terms on 
which the defendant may do so, only if it determines that: 
(1) a reasonably direct relationship existed between the defendant's 
occupation, business, or profession and the conduct relevant to 
the offense of conviction; and 
(2) imposition of such a restriction is reasonably necessary to 
protect the public because there is reason to believe that, 
absent such restriction, the defendant will continue to engage in 
unlawful conduct similar to that for which the defendant was 
convicted. 
(b) If the court decides to impose a condition of probation or 
supervised release restricting a defendant's engagement in a 
specified occupation, business, or profession, the court shall 
impose the condition for the minimum time and to the minimum 
extent necessary to protect the public. 
Case 3:19-cr-00053-RNC     Document 149     Filed 04/02/26     Page 3 of 7
4 
 
     Mr. Shayer contends that special condition 13 even in its 
current form does not satisfy the requirements of § 5F1.5.  The 
“nexus requirement” in subsection (a)(1) is not met, he argues, 
because there is no evidence his role as a hairdresser enabled 
or motivated his offense.  The “reasonably necessary” 
requirement in subsection (a)(2) is not met, in his view, 
because his offense conduct was limited to briefly viewing child 
pornography at home and computer monitoring and periodic 
polygraph tests conducted by the Probation Office show he poses 
no risk to minors.     
      Literally construed, subsection (a)(1)’s requirement that 
a reasonably direct relationship “existed” between the 
defendant’s occupation and his offense conduct means that a 
restriction may be imposed only if there was a relationship 
between a defendant’s occupation and his offense conduct.  
However, 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(7) contains no such requirement.  
It provides that a person’s freedom may be restricted with 
regard to an occupation “bearing” a reasonably direct 
relationship to the offense conduct.  Moreover, the nexus 
requirement in the guideline must be interpreted in light of the 
court’s authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1) to impose any 
discretionary condition of probation and “any other condition it 
considers to be appropriate” considering the nature and 
circumstances of the offense and the need to provide adequate 
deterrence and protection of the public.  A court cannot 
properly exercise the authority conferred by this statute if it 
is categorically precluded from imposing an occupational 
restriction simply because at the time of the offense conduct 
the person was working in a different occupation or not working 
at all. 
Case 3:19-cr-00053-RNC     Document 149     Filed 04/02/26     Page 4 of 7
5 
 
     Consistent with the terms of §§ 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1) and 
3563(b)(5), the nexus requirement in U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5(a)(1) 
should be deemed satisfied if the person on supervision wants to 
engage in an occupation bearing a reasonably direct relationship 
to the offense conduct.  In this case, there is a sufficiently 
direct relationship between Mr. Shayer’s proposed occupation of 
providing hairdressing services to minors and the conduct 
relevant to his downloading offense to warrant an occupational 
restriction.   
    Turning to the “reasonably necessary” requirement of 
subsection (a)(2), Mr. Shayer correctly emphasizes that his 
offense conduct was not as serious as that described in cases 
cited by the Government.  Nonetheless, his offense conduct is 
sufficiently serious to justify a legitimate concern that he 
continues to present a risk of recidivism.  The risk may be  
“low,” as he puts it, but it exists and cannot be ignored.   
Moreover, Mr. Shayer’s vulnerability to relapse is partly a 
function of his mental and emotional condition, which is an 
ongoing concern for him.  However one gauges his risk of 
reoffense, the risk will be heightened if he is allowed to have 
regular contact with young children in the salon.     
     Mr. Shayer also correctly emphasizes that special 
conditions of his supervised release requiring computer 
monitoring and periodic polygraph examinations provide 
deterrence and protection of the public.  The question here, 
though, is whether additional restrictions are reasonably 
necessary to adequately serve these purposes if Mr. Shayer is 
going to be allowed to provide hairdressing services to young 
children.  Based on an individualized assessment of the need for 
additional restrictions in light of the parties’ submissions and 
Case 3:19-cr-00053-RNC     Document 149     Filed 04/02/26     Page 5 of 7
6 
 
the position of the Probation Office, I conclude that the answer 
is yes. 
     Accordingly, special condition 13 will be amended as 
follows: 
     Effective May 1, 2026, Mr. Shayer may provide hairdressing 
services to minor children of adult clients at the salon where 
he currently works (“the salon”) but only by prior appointment 
made directly with the minor’s parent or guardian by Mr. Shayer 
personally. In scheduling the appointment, Mr. Shayer must 
notify the parent or guardian that unaccompanied minors are not 
permitted in the salon and, accordingly, that a parent or 
guardian of the child must be physically present in the salon 
throughout the scheduled appointment.  Mr. Shayer will not 
provide services to the minor unless the parent or guardian 
agrees to be present and he will refrain from providing services 
to the minor unless the parent or guardian is physically present 
throughout.    
     Mr. Shayer will create and maintain a log of such 
appointments as follows: at the time the appointment is made, he 
will enter into the log the name of the parent or guardian, the 
name and age of the minor, the date and time of the appointment, 
and a notation reflecting that the parent or guardian has agreed 
to be present throughout the appointment.  Mr. Shayer will 
provide the log to the Probation Office on request.  
     Mr. Shayer will not communicate directly with any minor 
client through phone, email or other means except with the 
permission of the Probation Office. 
     Before Mr. Shayer may begin providing services to minors, 
the Probation Office will inform the owner of the salon as 
follows: 
• Mr. Shayer is serving a term of federal supervised release 
as a result of his conviction for downloading child 
pornography; 
  
• Mr. Shayer’s special conditions of supervised release 
prohibit him from having contact with minors without the 
permission of the Probation Office; 
 
• Mr. Shayer has asked for permission to provide hairdressing 
services to minor children at the salon provided the 
Case 3:19-cr-00053-RNC     Document 149     Filed 04/02/26     Page 6 of 7
7 
 
child’s parent or guardian is physically present in the 
salon throughout the appointment; and 
 
• Mr. Shayer’s request has been granted subject to the 
conditions set forth above.
 
 
     The Probation Office will provide this information to the 
owner of the salon no later than April 21, 2026.   
     If Mr. Shayer does not want the Probation Office to provide 
this information to owner of the salon, he must notify the 
Probation Office on or before April 12, 2026.  In that event, 
the amendment will not go into effect and special condition 13 
will remain unchanged.  
     So ordered this 2nd day of April 2026. 
 
      ____________/s/ RNC________________ 
  Robert N. Chatigny                                        
United States District Judge 
      
Case 3:19-cr-00053-RNC     Document 149     Filed 04/02/26     Page 7 of 7

Passage view · GavelSight