FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  No. 06-50441

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.

v. CR-05-00765-  GPS-01 GORDON DOUGLAS COPE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. ORDER AND

OPINION 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

George P. Schiavelli, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

June 4, 2007—Pasadena, California

Filed June 4, 2008

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Raymond C. Fisher, and

Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Thomas

6325
COUNSEL

Sean K. Kennedy, Acting Federal Public Defender, and Elizabeth A. Newman (argued), Deputy Federal Public Defender,

Los Angeles, California, for the appellant. 

George S. Cardona, Acting United States Attorney, Thomas

P. O’Brien, Assistant United States Attorney, and Andrea L.

Russi (argued), Assistant United States Attorney, Los Angeles, California, for the appellee. 

ORDER

The panel has decided to withdraw the opinion filed

November 5, 2007. The opinion is withdrawn and a substituted opinion is filed concurrently with this order. 

With the filing of the substituted opinion, the panel has

voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc. 

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for

rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a

vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R. App. P.

35(b). 

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for

rehearing en banc is rejected. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc will be allowed.

OPINION

THOMAS, Circuit Judge: 

In this appeal we consider, among other matters, whether

the district court’s imposition of a lifetime of supervised

UNITED STATES v. COPE 6329
release was reasonable and whether the district court was

required to articulate findings before imposing certain special

conditions of supervised release pertaining to medication.

Under the circumstances presented by this case, we conclude

that the term of supervised release imposed was reasonable,

but that the district court should have articulated findings

before imposing special conditions of release that would

implicate a particularly significant liberty interest of the

defendant. Therefore, we affirm in part, vacate the sentence

in part, and remand for further proceedings. 

I

In September of 2003, San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department deputies discovered over 600 images and 20 videos of

child pornography on Gordon Cope’s home computers,

including “videos of sadistic and masochistic acts.” On March

10, 2006, Cope pled guilty to one count of possession of child

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).

Cope entered his plea pursuant to a plea agreement with the

government in which both parties stipulated to a total offense

level of 28 under the United States Sentencing Guidelines,

including numerous upward adjustments relating to the child

pornography possession. The government conditionally

agreed to seek the low end of the Guidelines range for incarceration, but made no agreement as to what term of supervised release it would seek. In return, Cope agreed to waive

his statutory right to appeal “any sentence imposed by” the

district court, provided certain requirements were met. Cope

retained his right to appeal most of the special conditions of

his supervised release. 

Following the change of plea hearing, the probation office

prepared, using the November 2002 Sentencing Guidelines, a

presentence report (“PSR”) recommending a total offense

level of 25 and a criminal history category of II. This would

ordinarily result in an advisory Guidelines range of 63 to 78

months. However, Cope’s 1981 conviction for attempted sex6330 UNITED STATES v. COPE
ual assault on a child triggered a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 120 months under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2).

The PSR noted that the Guidelines range for supervised

release was 2-3 years, but did not mention that the Guidelines

contained a policy statement recommending the statutory

maximum term of supervised release for those convicted of

sex offenses. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(c) (Nov. 2002). The statute in

effect at the time of Cope’s offense, like the one in effect

now, provided for a lifetime term of supervised release as the

statutory maximum for crimes involving possession of child

pornography. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) (2007); 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(k) (2003). In response to the PSR, the government

filed a sentencing memorandum recommending that Cope

receive the maximum term of supervised release in accordance with the Guidelines policy statement. Cope filed a

memorandum requesting a prison sentence of less than ten

years and a term of supervised release of less than life. Cope

specifically objected to any special condition of supervised

release of which he had not been given notice. 

The district court held a sentencing hearing on July 10,

2006. After hearing from the parties, the district court sentenced Cope — 58 years old at the time of sentencing — to

120 months in prison, the statutory minimum, and a lifetime

term of supervised release. The district court explained that a

three-year term of supervised release was not sufficient in

light of Cope’s criminal history, particularly his guilty plea to

attempted sexual assault on a child. Instead, the district court

found that a lifetime term of supervised release was necessary

based on the interest in

the protection of society that the government has

referred to . . . . [T]he nature of the offense, the type

of materials that were seized; and I think that the

protection of society, particularly in instances of the

protection of minors from this kind of offense, is a

paramount concern, obviously, to the government,

also to the court. 

UNITED STATES v. COPE 6331
The district court also imposed a number of special conditions

of supervised release, including a condition requiring Cope to

participate in sex offender treatment. As part of that treatment, the district court imposed conditions requiring Cope to

submit to polygraph testing, penile plethysmograph testing,

and Abel testing, and to take all prescribed medication.1

Another condition prohibits Cope from possessing any materials “depicting and/or describing child pornography as

defined in 18 United States Code section 2256, subdivision

eight.” Although the district court notified the parties that it

was considering a special condition requiring Cope to participate in sex offender treatment, the court made no mention,

prior to its announcement of the sentence, sub-conditions

relating to testing or medication. This timely appeal followed.

II

We review a defendant’s sentence for reasonableness, considering whether the district court accurately calculated the

Guidelines range and whether the sentence is reasonable in

light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. United States v.

Reina-Rodriguez, 468 F.3d 1147, 1158 (9th Cir. 2006). We

review conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.

2004).

1As we explained in detail in United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th

Cir. 2006), penile plethysmograph testing involves placing a device on a

man’s penis to “measure[ ] its circumference and thus the level of the subject’s arousal as he is shown sexually explicit slides or listens to sexually

explicit audio scenes,” id. at 562 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Plethysmograph testing has become a fairly common component of sex

offender treatment programs. Id. Abel testing, a far less intrusive procedure, “involves exhibiting photographs to an individual and measuring the

length of time he looks at each picture.” Id. at 567. Abel testing should not

be confused with “Abel’s test,” a mathematical method of testing for the

convergence of an infinite series. 

6332 UNITED STATES v. COPE
III

Cope argues it was unreasonable for the district court to

sentence him to a lifetime term of supervised release. He also

argues the district court did not adequately explain why the

lifetime term was necessary. Before reaching the merits of

this challenge, we must determine whether Cope waived his

right to appeal this aspect of his sentence. United States v.

Michlin, 34 F.3d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Our first task is

to assess the validity of the plea agreement.”). We review de

novo the waiver of a statutory right to appeal. United States

v. Bolinger, 940 F.2d 478, 479 (9th Cir. 1991). As long as the

waiver is made voluntarily and knowingly, a defendant may

waive his statutory right to appeal his sentence. United States

v. Baramdyka, 95 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir. 1996); United States

v. Navarro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318, 319, 321 (9th Cir. 1990).

In reviewing a waiver of appeal, we first examine “the circumstances surrounding the signing and entry of the plea

agreement to determine whether the defendant agreed to its

terms knowingly and voluntarily.” Baramdyka, 95 F.3d at

843. Cope does not contend that he entered into his plea

agreement and waiver unknowing or involuntarily. Indeed,

the district court conducted a full Rule 11 colloquy with the

defendant during his change of plea hearing, during which the

court confirmed Cope’s understanding of the waiver of his

right to appeal his sentence if certain conditions were met.

Accordingly, we are satisfied that Cope agreed to the terms of

the waiver knowingly and voluntarily. See id. at 844. 

Next, we determine the scope of the waiver — whether the

waiver precludes the defendant’s appeal — based on the language used in the plea agreement. Id. at 843. For the most

part, we interpret plea agreements “ ‘using the ordinary rules

of contract interpretation.’ ” United States v. Transfiguracion,

442 F.3d 1222, 1228 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Brown v. Poole,

337 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2003)). The drafter of the plea

agreement — usually the government, as was the case here —

UNITED STATES v. COPE 6333
bears responsibility for any lack of clarity, such that

“[a]mbiguities are . . . construed ‘in favor of the defendant,’ ”

id. (quoting United States v. Franco-Lopez, 312 F.3d 984, 989

(9th Cir. 2002)), and “the government is ordinarily held to the

literal terms of the plea agreement it made,” id.

Cope agreed to waive his right to appeal “any sentence

imposed by the Court, and the manner in which the sentence

is determined,” so long as 

(a) the sentence is within the statutory maximum

specified above and is constitutional, (b) the Court in

determining the applicable guideline range does not

depart upward in offense level or criminal history

category and determines that the total offense level

is 28 or below, and (c) the Court imposes a sentence:

(1) within or below the range corresponding to the

determined total offense level and criminal history

category; or (2) at the statutory mandatory minimum.

The plea agreement also stated that a lifetime term of

supervised release was the statutory maximum that could be

imposed, and that the government “makes no agreement as to

the term of supervised release to be imposed.” The plea agreement made clear that, as an exception to the general waiver

of his appellate rights, Cope retained the right to appeal some

of the conditions of his supervised release. 

[1] The length of Cope’s term of supervised release is part

of his “sentence,” and is not a condition of his supervised

release. See Weber, 451 F.3d at 559 (“We have long held that

a term of supervised release is part of a defendant’s sentence

. . . .”); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a) (providing that the court “may

include as a part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release”) (emphasis

added). Thus, the length of Cope’s term of supervised release

does not fall into the exception provided for appeal of certain

conditions of his supervised release. Under the language of

6334 UNITED STATES v. COPE
the waiver, Cope is barred from appealing the length of his

supervised release unless any one of the prerequisites stated

above has not been met. 

The prerequisites set forth in Cope’s waiver agreement will

be met, and Cope’s appeal of the length of his term of supervised release is barred, if Cope’s sentence is (a) within the

statutory maximum and is constitutional, (b) not based on an

upward departure or an offense level above 28, and (c) is

either within or below the Sentencing Guidelines range corresponding to Cope’s offense level and criminal history category or is at the statutory mandatory minimum. It is

undisputed that Cope’s 120-month term of incarceration

meets these requirements because it is at the statutory mandatory minimum for a defendant with a prior conviction relating

to sexual abuse. 

[2] Accordingly, Cope’s ability to appeal the length of his

supervised release must be based on the nonconformity of that

term of supervised release with the stated requirements.

Addressing each prerequisite in turn, we conclude that a lifetime term of supervised release is within the statutory maximum for a crime involving child pornography, the range of

which is “any term of years or life.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) (2003).2

The second requirement is also met because the district court

did not depart upward. As for the third requirement, a lifetime

term of supervised release is not at the statutory mandatory

minimum, which would be “any term of years.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(k) (2003). This means Cope’s appeal is barred only if

his lifetime term is “within or below the range corresponding

to the determined total offense level and criminal history category.” 

[3] As drafted, however, this provision cannot sensibly be

applied to a term of supervised release. Under the Sentencing

2The current version of the statute has a supervised release range of

“any term of years not less than 5, or life.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) (2007).

UNITED STATES v. COPE 6335
Guidelines, the offense level and criminal history category do

not control the term of supervised release, as they do the term

of imprisonment. Rather, the type of offense determines the

length of the Guidelines range for the term of supervised

release. See U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a) (Nov. 2002) (specifying

supervised release range for Class C felonies); 18 U.S.C.

§ 3559(a)(3) (Class C felony defined as a crime with a maximum term of imprisonment between 10 and 25 years); 18

U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2) (2003) (maximum term for Cope’s

crime is 20 years). This ambiguity in the waiver provision

makes it impossible for us to determine whether the prerequisites for waiver have been met with regard to Cope’s term of

supervised release. Because we “steadfastly” apply the rule

that “any lack of clarity” in a plea agreement should be construed against the government as drafter, Transfiguracion,

442 F.3d at 1228 (internal quotation marks omitted), we hold

that this ambiguity in the waiver provision permits Cope to

appeal the length of his term of supervised release. 

IV

Having established that Cope has not waived his right to

appeal his term of supervised release, we must determine

whether it was reasonable for the district court to sentence

Cope to a lifetime term of supervision following his eventual

release from prison. The parties do not dispute that the district

court accurately calculated the Guidelines range. The only

issues on appeal are whether the district court adequately

stated its reasons for imposing the lifetime term, 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(c), and whether the lifetime term is reasonable in light

of the § 3553(a) factors, id. § 3583(c). We answer both questions in the affirmative. 

[4] In this case, “[t]he record makes clear that the sentencing judge listened to each argument” regarding the length of

Cope’s term of supervised release and “considered the supporting evidence.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. ___, 2007

WL 1772146, at *13 (2007). After hearing from the parties,

6336 UNITED STATES v. COPE
the district court stated on the record that it had considered the

§ 3553(a) factors. It further stated that Cope’s criminal background, including a prior conviction for attempted sexual

assault in 1981, rendered three years of supervised release insufficient.3

 Instead, the district court explained that a lifetime

term of supervised release was necessary given the need for

“protection of society, particularly in instances of the protection of minors from this kind of offense,” in light of “the

nature of [Cope’s] offense” and “the type of materials that

were seized.” The district court also stated that it was taking

into account the fact that Cope would be around 68 upon his

release from custody, indicating that even if the court were to

sentence Cope to an actual term of years, rather than life, it

would choose a term of years that would have similar effect.

These statements meet the requirements of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(c) and amount to sufficient explanation, in open court,

of the reasons for imposing a lifetime term of supervised

release. As the Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he sentencing

judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court

that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking

authority.” See Rita, 2007 WL 1772146, at *12. We are satisfied with the district court’s explanation. 

Next, we examine whether Cope’s lifetime term of supervised release was reasonable. The parties disagree as to

whether we should review the length of a term of supervised

release for reasonableness, the standard we use when reviewing sentences, Reina-Rodriguez, 468 F.3d at 1158, or abuse of

3Cope is correct that the district court misstated some of the facts relating to his prior conviction. The district court incorrectly stated that the

1981 attempted sexual abuse involved Cope’s daughter and resulted in two

felony convictions, rather than one. The record shows, however, that any

error was harmless. The district court believed a lifetime term of supervised release was necessary given Cope’s recidivism and his longstanding

sexual interest in children. It is irrelevant, in this context, whether Cope’s

prior sex offense involved his daughter or a child unrelated to him, or

whether the 1981 incident led to two felony convictions or only one. 

UNITED STATES v. COPE 6337
discretion, the standard we use when reviewing conditions of

supervised release, Williams, 356 F.3d at 1052. Because the

length of a term of supervised release is not a condition of that

release, but instead is part of a defendant’s sentence, see

Weber, 451 F.3d at 559; 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a), we review for

reasonableness the district court’s decision to sentence Cope

to a lifetime term of supervised release. See also United States

v. Hayes, 445 F.3d 536, 537 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing a lifetime term of supervised release for reasonableness). 

[5] The district court’s statements, discussed above, demonstrate that the lifetime term is not greater than necessary, 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a), and is reasonable in light of the nature of

Cope’s offense, id. § 3553(a)(1), his history of having a sexual interest in children as early as 1981 and as late as 2003,

id., and the need to protect the public once Cope leaves

prison, id. § 3553(a)(2)(C). The lifetime term is also reasonable in light of the “pertinent policy statement,” id.

§ 3553(a)(5), issued by the Sentencing Commission, which

recommends the maximum term of supervised release for sex

offenses, U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(c). The Sentencing Guidelines’

definition of “sex offense” includes child pornography possession. United States v. Allison, 447 F.3d 402, 405 (5th Cir.

2006); United States v. Kimler, 335 F.3d 1132, 1147 (10th

Cir. 2003); 18 U.S.C. § 2252A (statute is located in Chapter

110 of title 18, which falls under the definition). Accordingly,

a lifetime term of supervised release for Cope is consistent

with the policy statement’s recommendation. See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(k) (2003) (lifetime statutory maximum). Moreover,

although their opinions do not necessarily render the sentence

reasonable in this particular case, some of our sister circuits

have held that life terms of supervised release are reasonable

for those convicted of possession of child pornography. See

Hayes, 445 F.3d at 537 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The fact that Hayes

. . . already was a recidivist [ ] weakens substantially his argument that” a lifetime term was unreasonable.); United States

v. Gonzalez, 445 F.3d 815, 820 (5th Cir. 2006) (lifetime term

for possession of child pornography was reasonable); see also

6338 UNITED STATES v. COPE
United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1025 (11th Cir.

2005) (lifetime term did not violate Eighth Amendment).

Therefore, under our deferential standard of review and the

circumstances of this case, we uphold the district court’s sentence of a lifetime term of supervised release. 

V

Cope challenges certain special conditions of his supervised release on the grounds that (1) he did not receive notice

of the conditions prior to the district court’s announcement of

the sentence, and (2) that the district court failed to make adequate findings to support the special conditions of release.

The government concedes, at least in part, that these challenges have merit and that a remand is therefore required. 

A

[6] “Where a condition of supervised release is not on the

list of mandatory or discretionary conditions in the sentencing

guidelines, notice is required before it is imposed, so that

counsel and the defendant will have the opportunity to

address personally its appropriateness.” United States v. Wise,

391 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 2004). The district court has

discretion as to the form and timing of the notice, and either

advanced written notice or oral notice at the sentencing hearing may be sufficient, depending on the circumstances. Id.

However, the district court will be deemed to have provided

no notice when it announces the sentence and conditions of

supervised release and only afterwards provides defendant’s

counsel an opportunity to comment. Id. (“It is not enough

notice, however, first to impose the sentence, and then to

invite counsel to comment, at least where counsel objects as

occurred here. That is no notice at all.”). 

[7] The government concedes a remand is necessary

because the district court failed to provide Cope and his counsel with notice of the special conditions requiring Cope, as

UNITED STATES v. COPE 6339
part of his sex offender treatment program, to take all prescribed medications and to submit to plethysmograph, polygraph, and Abel testing. Because these conditions of

supervised release are not contemplated by the Sentencing

Guidelines,4 the district court was required to provide notice

before imposing them. Although the district court notified

Cope that it would likely impose a sex offender treatment

condition, the court gave no indication the treatment condition

would involve the possibility of forced medication or plethysmograph, polygraph, and Abel testing. Cope’s attorney duly

objected to these conditions after the district court read the

sentence. Accordingly, we must vacate Cope’s sentence and

remand to the district court to permit the parties to address

whether these special conditions of supervised release are

appropriate. See Wise, 391 F.3d at 1033-34.

B

Cope argues that a remand is also necessary because the

district court did not provide a thorough discussion, on the

record, of why it was necessary to impose special conditions

of supervised release requiring Cope to submit to penile

plethysmograph testing and to “take all prescribed medication.” In United States v. Williams, we recognized that a condition of supervised release “compelling a person to take

antipsychotic medication is an especially grave infringement

of liberty,” such that the usual rule that a district court need

4The Guidelines do list (1) the mandatory condition that a defendant

convicted of a sexual offense must report his residential address to his probation officer and register as a sex offender, U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(a)(7) (Nov.

2002), and (2) the recommended special condition that a defendant convicted of a sexual offense must participate in a sexual offender treatment

program, id. § 5D1.3(d)(7). The Guidelines are silent, however, as to any

of the testing or medication requirements the district court included as part

of Cope’s treatment program. This case is therefore distinguishable from

United States v. Lopez, where we noted that the Guidelines specifically

contemplated participation in a mental health program. 258 F.3d 1053,

1055-56 (9th Cir. 2001). 

6340 UNITED STATES v. COPE
not articulate its reasons for imposing supervised release conditions does not apply. 356 F.3d at 1055. Instead, where

forced antipsychotic medication is concerned, “a thorough

inquiry is required before a court” may include it as a condition of supervised release. Id. This inquiry requires the district

court to “make an explicit finding on the record that the condition ‘involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary.’ ” Id. at 1057 (quoting 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(d)(2)). In addition, the parties must develop

“medically-informed records,” id. at 1056, to permit the district court to make “on-the-record, medically-grounded findings that court-ordered medication is necessary to accomplish

one or more of the factors listed in § 3583(d)(1),” id. at 1057.

Those factors include the nature of the crime, the history and

characteristics of the defendant, and the need to encourage

deterrence, protect the public, and provide the defendant with

rehabilitative services. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B),

(a)(2)(C) & (a)(2)(D). 

In Weber, we extended the Williams rule to conditions

requiring those on supervised release to submit to penile

plethysmograph testing as part of their sex offender treatment.

451 F.3d at 568-69. We explained that whenever a condition

“implicates a particularly significant liberty interest of the

defendant,” the district court must articulate, based on evidence in the record, why the condition “is necessary to

accomplish one or more of the factors listed in § 3583(d)(1)

and involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary.” Id. at 561 (quoting Williams, 356 F.3d at

1057) (internal quotation marks omitted). When making these

heightened findings in the context of plethysmograph testing

specifically, the district court must consider whether the testing is sufficiently likely to yield useful results “given a defendant’s specific characteristics,” despite the known flaws and

intrusiveness of plethysmograph testing, as well as explain

why the many less-intrusive alternatives to plethysmograph

testing are not adequate. Id. at 567-68; see also id. at 569

(reiterating the need for evidence about the particular characUNITED STATES v. COPE 6341
teristics and circumstances of the defendant). We also clarified that the government bears the burden of demonstrating

why the condition meets the requirements of 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(d)(1)-(2). Id. at 558. 

Here, the government correctly concedes that we must

remand this case back to the district court because it did not

articulate, on the record, the necessary Weber findings with

regard to the condition requiring Cope to submit to plethysmograph testing. The government contends, however, that the

heightened requirements of Williams and Weber do not apply

to the condition requiring Cope to “take all prescribed medication.” It is true that Williams addressed only antipsychotic

medication, rather than a condition pertaining to forced medication of any kind. Antipsychotic medication, as the Williams

court pointed out, has received a great deal of attention from

this court and the Supreme Court as a particularly intrusive

category of drug that alters mental processes, affects behavior

and demeanor, and “interferes with a person’s selfautonomy,” in addition to subjecting patients to serious side

effects. Williams, 356 F.3d at 1053-55; see also Riggins v.

Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992); Washington v. Harper, 494

U.S. 210 (1990); Kulas v. Valdez, 159 F.3d 453 (9th Cir.

1998). That said, we must read Williams in conjunction with

Weber, where we expanded the Williams requirements to

plethysmograph testing and suggested that a district court

should make the heightened Williams findings before imposing any condition that “implicates a particularly significant

liberty interest of the defendant.” Weber, 451 F.3d at 561. 

[8] There is nothing in Williams and Weber that would suggest that the holdings were limited to the treatments at issue.

To the contrary, both decisions imply that the requirement of

special findings applies to any imposed treatment or medication that implicates a particularly significant liberty interest.

Accordingly, where, as here, a district court orders a defendant to take “any” or “all” medication prescribed by medical

or other treatment personnel during his term of supervised

6342 UNITED STATES v. COPE
release without making heightened Williams findings, this allencompassing medication condition must necessarily be

understood as limited to those medications that do not implicate a particularly significant liberty interest of the defendant.

If the government wishes to impose upon a defendant a condition relating to a particular medication likely to infringe upon

significant liberty interests, it must bring the issue to the

attention of the district court, where it bears the burden of

demonstrating why the specific medication condition “is necessary to accomplish one or more of the factors listed in

§ 3583(d)(1) and involves no greater deprivation of liberty

than is reasonably necessary.” Weber, 451 F.3d at 561 (internal quotation marks omitted). After the parties have developed the necessary “medically-informed records,” Williams,

356 F.3d at 1056, the district court must make “on-the-record,

medically-grounded findings that court-ordered medication is

necessary to accomplish one or more of the factors listed in

§ 3583(d)(1),” id. at 1057, and “that the condition ‘involves

no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary,’ ” id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(2)).5

5

In this context of sexual offender treatment, there are at least two

examples of medication that would implicate particularly significant liberty interests such that the district court must make the necessary Williams

and Weber findings before Cope may be required to take them as part of

his treatment. The first, as we have already held, is any antipsychotic medication. Williams, 356 F.3d at 1054-57. Cope also raises the possibility

that he could be ordered to undergo so-called “chemical castration,” the

taking of hormonal drugs to reduce his sex drive and cause temporary

impotence. We have no doubt that chemical castration would, if prescribed

against the will of a defendant on supervised release, implicate a particularly significant liberty interest. Like antispychotic medication, chemical

castration interferes with mental processes and alters behavior. See, e.g.,

People v. Gauntlett, 352 N.W.2d 310, 314-16 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984); John

F. Stinneford, Incapacitation Through Maiming: Chemical Castration, the

Eighth Amendment, and the Denial of Human Dignity, 3 St. Thomas L.J.

559 (2006). It may also cause serious side effects, such as cancer and

depression. Gauntlett, 352 N.W.2d at 315; Physician’s Desk Reference

2624 (61st ed., 2007) (discussing Depo-Provera, a hormonal drug used for

chemical castration). As a result, chemical castration is certainly as intruUNITED STATES v. COPE 6343
[9] Given these considerations, we remand this case to the

district court to make findings on the record in accordance

with Weber, 451 F.3d at 567-69, before imposing the plethysmograph testing condition. We also remand to permit the district court to make the necessary Williams and Weber findings

with regard to the condition requiring Cope to “take all prescribed medication,” insofar as that condition may require

Cope to take medication that implicates a particularly significant liberty interest. 

VI

Cope also attacks the medication condition on the ground

that it infringes his procedural due process rights and is overbroad. Under normal circumstances, a district court is not

required to “articulate on the record at sentencing the reasons

for imposing each condition.” United States v. Rearden, 349

F.3d 608, 619 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Williams, 356 F.3d at

1055. Cope’s due process argument is foreclosed by Williams

and Weber, which require additional process only when a

forced medication condition “implicates a particularly significant liberty interest.” Weber, 451 F.3d at 561. The remand in

light of Williams and Weber, discussed above, will provide

Cope with all the process he is due. 

[10] We agree with Cope, however, that the requirement

sive as antipsychotic medication or penile plethysmograph testing. See

Weber, 451 F.3d at 561-64; Williams, 356 F.3d at 1054. In fact, chemical

castration may be found at the extreme end of the spectrum of intrusive

medications and procedures, and there may well be other conditions of

supervised release that qualify for Williams and Weber findings without

reaching that level of intrusion. We do not doubt that there will be other

types of medication or procedures designed to rehabilitate or deter, either

extant or not yet in existence, which, if forced upon a defendant as a condition of supervised release, would implicate particularly significant liberty interests. Cf., e.g., Anthony Burgess, A Clockwork Orange (W. W.

Norton & Co. 1962). 

6344 UNITED STATES v. COPE
that he “shall take all prescribed medication” is overbroad

insofar as it is not clearly limited to medications that are reasonably related to sex offender treatment. Congress has stated

that special conditions of supervised release must be “reasonably related to the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1),

(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), and (a)(2)(D).” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1).

Those factors are “the nature and circumstances of the offense

and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” id.

§ 3553(a)(1), “the need . . . to afford adequate deterrence to

criminal conduct,” id. § 3553(a)(2)(B), “the need . . . to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,” id.

§ 3553(a)(2)(C), and “the need . . . to provide the defendant

with needed educational or vocational training, medical care,

or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner,”

id. § 3553(a)(2)(D). Each of these factors points primarily to

the underlying sex offense committed by Cope and the resulting need for treatment and deterrence. In accordance with the

congressional intent, any medication Cope is required to take

as a condition of his supervised release must be reasonably

related to his treatment as a sex offender. Indeed, were the

rule otherwise, a person on supervised release could arguably

violate the terms of his release by neglecting to take prescribed cold medications. Therefore, we hold that any medication condition that the district court imposes on remand must

be limited to medications reasonably related to Cope’s treatment as a sex offender.6

VII

[11] Cope also argues that the sex offender treatment condition requiring him to submit to plethysmograph, Abel, and

polygraph testing, as well as to inpatient treatment, is over6Because the parties do not raise it, we do not reach the question

whether the medication condition, in permitting treatment personnel and

the probation officer to determine which medications Cope will be

required to take, is an improper delegation of authority. See United States

v. Stephens, 424 F.3d 876, 880-82 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2005). 

UNITED STATES v. COPE 6345
broad. Cope cites no authority for this proposition, and we

hold that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion

in setting these conditions of supervised release. Williams,

356 F.3d at 1052; United States v. Bee, 162 F.3d 1232, 1234

(9th Cir. 1998). The district court’s order requiring comprehensive sex offender treatment is reasonably related to Cope’s

history as a recidivist sex offender, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1),

the need to protect the public from potential future sex crimes,

id. § 3553(a)(2)(C), the need to deter Cope from committing

such crimes, id. § 3553(a)(2)(B), and Cope’s need for correctional treatment, id. § 3553(a)(2)(D). See 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(d)(1). In addition, the condition does not involve a

greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary for

these purposes, id. § 3583(d)(2),7 and is not contrary to any

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, id.

§ 3583(d)(3); see United States v. Fellows, 157 F.3d 1197,

1203-04 (9th Cir. 1998) (rejecting an overbreadth challenge to

aspects of a supervised release condition relating to sex

offender treatment). 

VIII

Finally, we address whether the special condition of Cope’s

supervised release prohibiting him from possessing “any

materials . . . depicting and/or describing child pornography”

is overbroad. Cope contends this condition is overbroad

because it exposes him to incarceration for possession of otherwise protected materials “describing” child pornography,

such as statutes, caselaw, and Cope’s own writings as part of

his sex offender treatment. Cope did not object to this condition below, so we review for plain error. United States v.

7We, of course, leave open the question whether the plethysmograph

testing requirement is reasonably related to the appropriate § 3553(a) factors and “involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)-(2). As discussed above, the district court

must make this determination on the record in accordance with Weber,

451 F.3d at 561, 567-70. 

6346 UNITED STATES v. COPE
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-36 (1993). In order for us to reverse

the district court under this standard of review, we must find

“an ‘error’ that is ‘plain’ and that ‘affects substantial rights.’ ”

United States v. Minore, 292 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2002)

(quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732). “If those requirements are

met, we will exercise our discretion to correct the error only

if it ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. (quoting Olano, 507 U.S.

at 732). The condition constitutes plain error for two reasons.

[12] First, the condition straightforwardly applies to Cope’s

own presentence report, as well as copies of statutes and cases

that Cope might need were he to bring a collateral challenge

to an aspect of his sentence once he is released from prison.

See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) (defining child pornography); Rearden, 349 F.3d at 612, 615 (describing particular

images of child pornography). The government effectively

acknowledges that the condition could interfere with Cope’s

ability to bring a collateral attack by suggesting “that the

panel consider adding language to make it clear that defendant can review legal materials in the possession of his lawyer

or probation officer.” Resp. to Pet. for Reh’g 6-7. While we

agree that an amendment to the condition would cure this particular problem, it is the district court that must alter the conditions of a defendant’s supervised release. See United States

v. Miller, 205 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2000); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).

If a condition is to be amended, we must order the district

court to do so on remand. However, the government’s suggested amendment is insufficient to protect Cope’s right to

prepare a collateral attack. Cope is indigent and has no statutory or constitutional right to counsel on collateral attack;

thus, requiring him to obtain counsel, or even the assistance

of his probation officer, in order to formulate a collateral

attack is unduly restrictive. Therefore, we direct the district

court on remand to amend this condition to clarify that Cope

may possess materials necessary to a collateral attack for the

purposes of preparing a collateral attack. 

UNITED STATES v. COPE 6347
[13] The second error in the condition is that because it

bars Cope from possessing “writings . . . describing child pornography,” it would, by its plain language, apply to journalwriting or the writing of a “sexual autobiography,” see United

States v. Antelope, 395 F.3d 1128, 1135 (9th Cir. 2005), that

may be required elements of Cope’s sex offender treatment.

We cannot, as the government urges, assume this condition

will be construed so as not to put Cope to the choice of violating it and violating another condition of his supervised

release, such as the requirement that he “abide by all rules,

requirements, and conditions of” a sex offender treatment program. “We review the language of the condition as it is written and cannot assume, as the government seems to suggest,”

that it will be interpreted contrary to its plain language.

United States v. Sales, 476 F.3d 732, 737 (9th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, we also direct the district court on remand to

amend the condition to clarify that Cope may keep journals or

participate in the writing of a “sexual autobiography,” if

required by his sex offender treatment. 

If so amended, this condition of Cope’s supervised release

will readily pass constitutional muster. We have already

rejected an overbreadth challenge to a similar condition prohibiting a defendant from possessing “any materials depicting

sexually explicit conduct as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2).”

Rearden, 349 F.3d at 619. We upheld the restriction because

“[a] defendant’s right to free speech may be abridged to effectively address [his] sexual deviance problem,” id. (internal

quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original), and

because the restriction furthered the goals of rehabilitation

and protecting the public, id. at 620. Given Cope’s long history of sexual attraction to children, the same reasoning

applies here. However, the condition may not interfere with

Cope’s ability to formulate a collateral attack if he so chooses,

nor may the condition create a conflict with other conditions

of his supervised release. Cope “cannot be left to guess about

the intended meaning of the terms of his supervised release.”

Sales, 476 F.3d at 737. 

6348 UNITED STATES v. COPE
IX

In conclusion, although we uphold the district court’s sentence of a lifetime term of supervised release, we vacate the

sentence and remand to permit the district court: (1) to provide notice to the parties of any special condition of supervised release not contemplated by the Sentencing Guidelines;

(2) to articulate specific, medically informed findings on the

record regarding the need for Cope to undergo plethysmograph testing and take medications that implicate particularly

significant liberty interests; (3) to clarify that any condition

requiring Cope to take all prescribed medications is limited to

those medications reasonably related to sex offender treatment; and (4) to clarify that the condition prohibiting Cope

from possessing materials describing child pornography does

not apply to materials necessary to, and used for, a collateral

attack, or to materials prepared or used for the purposes of his

court-mandated sex offender treatment. 

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED.

UNITED STATES v. COPE 6349