UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendant, Kevin Lee Poulsen, by and through his attorney of record, Michael J. Brennen, hereby files this supplement to his previously filed Motion For Clarification Of Terms of Supervised Release. This supplement is based on the government's statement of position re: defendant's motion, discussions between defendant and the United States Probation Office, the files and records in this matter, and such further evidence as may be presented at the hearing on this matter.

DATED: September 12, 1996

SUPPLEMENTAL TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION RE: CLARIFICATION

1.On or about August 22, 1996, the government filed its statement of position re: Defendant's Motion for Clarification in this matter. In its statement, the government indicated that it had "no objection to the defendant's request to attend college, provided that attendance does not interfere with defendant's primary responsibility to make restitution to the victims of his crime..." In defendant's initial motion in this matter, he requested permission to attend college full-time. Defendant Poulsen now modifies his request and seeks to attend college part-time, a total of no more than 12 units per semester. Further, Mr. Poulsen has obtained employment, working a minimum of 25 hours per week. Based on these changed circumstances, Mr. Poulsen proposed to the United States Probation Office that he maintain his current employment, working a minimum of 25 hours per week, and attend college on a part-time basis, taking no more than 12 units per semester. Attached to this supplement is an income and expense statement indicating that based upon this proposal Mr. Poulsen would be able to make restitution payments of at least one-hundred dollars ($100.00) per month. (This restitution figure is possible given the fact that Mr. Poulsen has chosen to reduce his monthly expenses by living with relatives rather than incurring additional personal expenses if he were to reside by himself or with friends.) Mr. Poulsen's proposal for part-time college attendance and part-time work has been rejected by the United States Probation Office.

Mr. Poulsen's request of this Court is that he be permitted to pursue a plan which encompasses meaningful rehabilitation and, at the same time, allows him to make meaningful restitution to the victims of his crimes. During the time Mr. Poulsen was incarcerated in connection with this matter, he obtained his GED and began studying college-level materials on a variety of subjects. He now wants to obtain his bachelor's degree in order to be able to legitimately support himself with a meaningful job in the future. Mr. Poulsen fully recognizes his obligations to this Court to make restitution payments in a meaningful way. To that end, Mr. Poulsen has arranged to reside with family members in an effort to reduce his necessary monthly expenses. By reducing his monthly expenses, he is therefore able to make restitution payments to the government in amounts which would most likely not be possible if he were living by himself or with friends with whom he would have to equally share monthly living expenses.

Mr. Poulsen's proposal meets two substantial objectives of supervised release, one being meaningful rehabilitation through the pursuit of a college degree and the second being meaningful restitution payments as a result of regular employment. If the Court approves this proposal, Mr. Poulsen will attempt to increase the number of hours per week he is able to work in the future once he has had an opportunity to acclimate himself to his school schedule and work schedule. If Mr. Poulsen is able to increase the number of hours he works per week, he can obviously increase the amount of his restitution payments as well. Mr. Poulsen has no objection to doing either of these things.

2.With respect to Mr. Poulsen's request for clarification of the Court's order concerning access to computers, the government's statement in response to Mr. Poulsen's motion would appear to resolve this matter. The government indicated in its response that Mr. Poulsen should not be allowed access to computers which were "equipped with modems" or had the "capability of accessing other systems." Mr. Poulsen would certainly agree that the apparent meaning of the Court's order regarding access to computers would envision an absolute limitation against his possession or use of any computer equipped with a modem or which had other capability of accessing other computers. Mr. Poulsen merely requests that the Court clarify and adopt the apparent agreement between the parties that he not be allowed to possess or use computers with modems and/or the capability to access other computers.

DATED: September 12, 1996

Respectfully submitted,