United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-1639 ___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joseph Matthew Ketsenburg

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: November 13, 2025 Filed: November 18, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Ketsenburg served his prison sentence for a child pornography conviction and began serving his lifetime supervised release sentence in March 2018. In May, the probation officer petitioned to revoke, alleging multiple violations and Ketesenburg’s false denial, lack of remorse, and boasting that he showed no deception at a recent polygraph test because he believed he had done nothing wrong. The district court1 revoked supervised release, imposed a 10 month prison sentence, reimposed a lifetime of supervised release, and imposed a new special condition requiring Ketsenburg to submit to testing at the discretion of the PO to ensure compliance with supervised release or a treatment program. Ketsenburg did not appeal. In February 2020, the PO moved to modify that special condition to provide that the testing requirement is not limited to ensuring compliance. Ketsenburg waived a modification hearing and agreed to that modification.

In February 2025, Ketsenburg moved to modify his supervised release conditions to eliminate PO discretion to require periodic polygraph testing, arguing that special condition is not authorized by the Guidelines and continued testing no longer serves the goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and requesting an evidentiary hearing. He now appeals the district court’s order denying his motion. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude the district court did not abuse its substantial discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Trimble, 969 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Ketsenburg’s pending motion to supplement the record on appeal. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-