## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 24 30

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

*

App el le e, * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s

* Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

v. * East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

*

Ju st in Dani el Deat he rag e, *

*

App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 13 , 20 12

Fi le d: Ju ne 26 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re LOKEN, BOW MAN, an d B YE, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ju st in Deat he rag e was ch arg ed wit h fo ur co un ts of rece iv in g an d on e co un t of

po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap hy do wnl oa de d t o h is co m pu te r fro m Ju ly 14 to Ju ly 17

,

20 08

. Afte r p r e t r i a l rel eas e an d nu m ero us co nt in ua nc es

, in Nov em be r 20 10 he

pl ead e d g u i l t y to th e po ss es si on co un t, a vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B).

Afte r a two -d ay co nt es te d he ari ng

, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Deat he rag e to se ve nt y 1

m on th s in pr is on an d te n y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. He ap pe al s fo ur sp e ci al

co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. W he n a de fen da nt pr op erl y ob jects at se nt en ci ng

,

The Hon or ab le Su sa n W eb be r Wr i g ht

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.we rev ie w sp eci al co nd it io ns fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St a t e s v

. S t ul ts

, 57 5

F.3 d 83 4, 85 0 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 09 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 0 S. Ct

. 13 09 (2 01 0)

. Bec au se th e

is su es rai se d on ap pe al tu rn pr im ari ly on th e di st ric t co ur t’s cred ib il it y fin di ng s,

whi ch are v irt ua ll y

un as sa il ab le , we affi rm

.

I.

Our co ur t ha s pu bl is he d m o r e th an twen ty op in io ns rev ie win g ch al le ng es to

sp eci al co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e im po se d in se nt en ci ng a va rie ty of se x

of fen de rs

. The s e i s s ue s recu r in se x of fen de r cas es be cau se a nu m be r of sp eci al 2

co nd it io ns co m

m on ly im po se d, in cl ud in g th os e reco m m en de d by t h e Sen te nc in g

Co m m is si on in § 5D1 .3(d )(7 ) of th e Gui de li ne s, m ay res ul t in “ swe ep in g res tri ct io ns

on im po rt a n t co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s,” su ch as co nd it io ns se ve rel y res tri ct in g a

de fen da nt ’s rig ht to co nt act ch il dr en

, in cl ud in g h i s o wn; to vi ew se xu al ly-ori en te d

m at eri al s pr ot ect ed by th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t; or to acce ss an d us e co m pu te rs an d th e

In te rn et

. Uni te d St at es v. Cru m e, 42 2 F.3 d 72 8, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Our st an da rd s

of rev ie w are n ow wel l-e st ab li sh ed :

A di st ric t co ur t ha s br oa d di sc ret io n to im po se sp eci al co nd it io ns

of su pe r v i se d rel eas e, so lo ng as each co nd it io n co m pl ie s wit h th e

r e q u ire m en ts se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d ). Sect io n 35 83 (d ) f i r s t

req ui res th at a sp eci al co nd it io n m us t be reas on ab ly rel at ed to th e na tu re

an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on

, th e de fen da nt ’s hi st or y

an d ch arac te ris ti cs

, th e de te rren ce of cri m in al co nd uc t, th e pr ot ect io n of

th e p u b l i c fro m fu rth er cri m es of th e de fen da nt

, an d th e de fen da nt ’s

ed uc at io na l, vo cat io na l, m ed ic al

, or ot he r co rrec ti on al ne ed s.

. . . Seco nd

, a sp eci al co nd it io n al so m us t in vo lv e no gr eat er de pr iv at io n of

li be rty th an is reas on ab ly ne ces sa ry to de te r cri m in al co nd uc t, to pr ot ect

th e pu bl ic fro m fu rth er c r i mes of th e de fen da nt , a nd to pr ov id e fo r th e

See ge ne ral ly U.S. Sen te nc in g Co m m ’n, Fed eral Offen de rs S en te nc ed to 2

Su pe rv is ed Rel eas e p p. 2 0- 27 (Ju ly 201 0)

.

-2

-de fen da nt ’s ed uc at io na l, vo cat io na l, m ed ic al

, a n d ot he r co rrec ti on al

ne ed s. Fi na ll y

, a sp eci al co nd it io n m us t be co ns is te nt wit h an y pe rti ne nt

po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on

. In fas hi on in g

a sp e c i a l co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, a co ur t m us t m ak e an

in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry in to th e fact s an d ci rc um sta nc es un de rlyin g a cas e

an d m ak e su ffi ci e n t f

i n d i ng s on th e reco rd so as to en su re th at th e

sp eci al co nd it io n s at is fie s t he st at ut or y req ui rem en ts

.

* * * * *

Our cas es sa y th at a co ur t m ay im po se a sp eci al co nd it io n on th e

gr ou nd th a t it is rel at ed to a de fen da nt ’s pr io r of fen se

, bu t th at a co ur t

m ay n o t im

po se a sp eci al co nd it io n on al l th os e fo un d gu il ty of a

pa rti cu la r of

fen se

.

* * * * *

At so m e p o i n t

, t h ere m us t be a li m it to th e ne ed fo r an

in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry, be cau se cert ai n ch arac te ris ti cs may jus ti fy

co rres po nd in g co nd it io ns fo r vi rtu al ly al l of fen de rs wit h s u c h

ch arac te ris ti cs

. . . .

Uni te d St at es v. Sp rin gs to n, 65 0 F.3 d 11 53

, 11 55 -5 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), va c a te d an d

rem an de d on ot he r gr ou nd s, 13 2 S. Ct

. 19 05 (2 01 2)

, qu ot ed ex t e n si ve ly in Uni te d

St at es v. Sch aefe r, 67 5 F.3 d 11 22

, 11 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Of cri ti cal im po rta nc e in th is

cas e, ev en in th e ab se nc e of in di vi du al iz ed fin di ng s a sp eci al co nd it io n n eed no t b e

va cat ed “ if t h e b as is fo r th e im po se d co nd it io n can be di sc ern ed fro m th e reco rd .”

Uni te d St at es v. Tho m

ps on

, 65 3 F.3 d 68 8, 69 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); acco rd Uni te d St at es

v. Sm it h, 6 55 F.3d 83 9, 8 45 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

II

.

The un de rlyin g in ve st ig at io n be ga n in Ju ne 20 08 whe n Mi ch el e Alfo rd

, a

y ou ng si ng le m ot he r, co nt act ed th e Ru ss el lv il le , Ar ka ns as po li ce. Alfo rd rep or te d

-3

-th at sh e was in a lo ng st an di ng se xu al rel at io ns hi p wit h Deat he rag e, a th irt y -y ear- ol d

m arri ed fat he r of two y ou ng ch il dr en

, an d ha d be co m e co nc ern ed th at Deat he rag e’s

gr ap hi c de sc r i p ti on s of ab us iv e se xu al co nt act wit h hi s ch il dr en ’s twel ve -y ear- ol d

ba bysit te r, a te n- y ear- ol d fri en d of th e ba bysit te r, an d a se ve n- y ear- ol d gi rl who li ve d

acro ss th e st reet fro m Deat he rag e were no t si m pl y fan ta si zi ng

, as Alfo rd in it ia ll y

as su m ed

. The po li ce ad vi se d th ey wou ld ne ed m or e ev id en ce of ch il d se x ab us e.

Alfo rd pro vi de d a n u nd at ed pri nt ou t o f an on li ne ch at wit h Dea th erag e in whi ch he

di sc us se d i n l ur id de ta il th is il le ga l s ex ua l co nt act . At po li ce req ue st , Al fo rd as ke d

Deat he rag e if he ha d pi ct ur es of th is co nt act an d th en m et hi m on th e m or ni ng of Ju ly

18 weari ng a h i d d e n “wi re” to reco rd th ei r co nv ers at io n. Deat he rag e was arre st ed

whe n h e ag ai n d et ai le d s ex ua l en co un te rs wit h t he ch il dr en in gra ph ic de ta il

.

In a po st -arr es t i n t e r v i ew, Deat he rag e de ni ed ha vi ng se xu al co nt act wit h th e

ch il dr en or be in g se xu al ly at tra ct ed to ch il dr en

, c l a i mi n g th at he on ly de sc rib ed

se xu al fan ta si es wit h y ou ng gi rls to aro us e Alfo rd

. C o n t i nu in g to in ve st ig at e, th e

po li ce di d no t id en ti fy th e ba bysit te r or he r fri en d. The se ve n- y ear- ol d ne ig hb or was

in te rv ie wed by an Ark an sa s St at e Po li ce in ve st ig at or

. Sh e de ni ed se xu al co nt act wit h

Deat he rag e bu t “ ha d a ve ry st ro ng reac ti on whe n as ke d ab ou t an y bo dy to uc hi ng he r

in ap pr op r i a te ly,” an d he r de m ean or whe n Deat he rag e was m en ti on ed “ was no t

co ns is te nt wit h a fri en dl y , hea lt hy relat io ns hi p.”

Mea nwh il e, Deat he r a g e ’s wi fe co ns en te d to se iz ur e of th e fam il y co m pu te r.

A warra nt se arch un co ve red si x vi de os an d so m e twen ty im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy

do wnl oa de d be twee n J u l y 1 4 an d 17 th at in cl ud ed im ag es of pr ep ub es cen t fem al es

un de r ag e twel ve be in g su bjec te d to bo nd ag e an d en ga gi ng in be st ia li ty. Mo st of th e

vi de os pi ct ur ed th e sa m e y ou ng gi rl who se m ot he r la te r su bm it te d a v i c t i m im pa ct

st at em en t. Po li ce al so fo un d a th irt y -p ag e li st in g of m or e th an on e hu nd red li nk s to

pe do ph il e web si te s. Th is fed eral pro se cu ti on fol lo wed

.

-4

-II I.

W e vi ew th es e se nt en ci ng is su es fro m th e pe rs pe ct iv e of th e se nt en ci ng jud ge

.

Fo r Ju dg e W rig ht

, th e fact -fi nd in g be ga n whe n Deat he rag e ap pe ared fo r th e ch an ge

of -p le a he ari ng

. Defen se co un se l so ug ht to co nt in ue th e he ari ng up on le arn in g th at

Deat he rag e m

us t sh ow “ ex cep ti on al ci rcu m st an ces ” to av oi d im m ed ia te de te nt io n

aft er pl ead in g g u i l t y to a ch il d po rn og rap hy of fen se

. Not in g th e lo ng de la y

, Ju dg e

W rig ht res po nd ed th at Deat he r a g e mu s t c ha ng e hi s pl ea or be pr om pt ly tri ed

. The

go ve rn m en t ur ge d im m ed ia te de te nt io n ev en if Deat he rag e di d no t en te r a gu il ty pl ea.

The co ur t or de red an im m ed ia te he ari ng on th at is su e. FBI cas e ag en t Tod d Hud so n

te st ifi ed th at Deat he rag e’s fo rm er si st er-i n- la w ( hi s wife ha vi ng di vo rced hi m so on

aft er hi s arre st ) ha d cal le d earl ie r th at week fro m Pen ns y lv an ia

, whe re th e ex -wif e an d

ch il dr en were li vi ng

. Sh e rep or te d se ei ng in a p pr op ria te se xu al co nt act be twee n

Deat he rag e an d hi s y ou ng ch il dr en an d ov erh eari ng t h e St at e Po li ce in ve st ig at or ’s

in te rv ie w of th e so n, whi ch res ul te d in th e ch il dr en ’s im m ed ia te pl acement in fo st er

care

. Sh e fu rth er op i n e d t h a t “ bo th ch il dr en are in co un se li ng du e to th e ou twar d

m an ife st at io ns of se xu al ab us e.” Afte r he ari ng te st im on y by Deat he rag e, th e co ur t

fo un d ba se d on th e ne w al le ga ti on s an d th e on li ne ch at wit h A l f o r d th at he “ is a

da ng er to th e co m

m un it y ” an d or de red hi m de ta in ed

. The co ur t ob se rv ed

, “ I am ve ry

co nc ern ed aft er read in g th is ch at

. I f i t ’s a fan ta sy, he do es n’t writ e it as if it ’s a

fan ta sy.” Death erag e th en en te red th e g ui lt y pl ea.

The pr im ary is su e at se nt en ci ng was th e pr is on te rm to be im po se d. Co ns is te nt

wit h no n- bi nd in g st ip ul at io ns in th e pl ea ag reem en t, th e Pres en te nc e In ve st ig a t i on

Rep or t reco m

m en de d a ba se of

fen se le ve l of 18

, fo ur en ha nc em en ts to ta li ng 12 le ve ls

un de r U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .2(b ), an d a 2- le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

.

Befo re th e st art of th e two -d ay ev id en ti ary he ari ng

, ne it he r pa rty ob jecte d to th e PSR

reco m m en d at io ns

, res ul ti ng in an ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of 70 to 87 m on th s in

pr is on an d su pe rv is ed rel eas e th at co ul d be im po se d fo r th e de fen da nt ’s li fet im e. As

bo th si de s wou ld pr es en t ev id en ce, th e co ur t di rect ed th e go ve rn m en t to pr oc eed fir st

.

-5

-The go ve rn m en t’s fir st wit ne ss was FBI ag en t Hud so n who de sc rib ed th e st at e

an d fed eral in ve st ig at io n, la id fo un da ti on fo r co pi es of t he on li ne ch at an d th e wire

reco rd in g ad m it te d as Exh ib it s 1 an d 3

, d es cri be d th e fo ren si c ex am in at io n of

Deat he rag e’s co m

pu te r, an d reco un te d ag ai n t he rep or t fro m th e st at e in ve st ig at or

who in te rv ie wed th e s ev en -y ear- ol d ne ig hb or

. The si x do wnl oa de d vi de os were

ad m it te d as Exh ib it 4 an d pl ay ed i n op en co ur t. The ad di ti on al im ag es of ch il d

po rn og rap hy fo un d in th e co m pu te r’s te m

po rary in te rn et fil e fo ld er were ad m it te d as

Exh ib it 5, an d th e th irt y -p ag e li st of pe do ph il e web si te s pr ev io us ly ad mi t te d at th e

de te nt io n he ari ng was ad m it te d as Exh ib it 2. On cro ss ex am in at io n, Hud so n ad m it te d

th at he ha d no pe rs on al kn owl ed ge of Deat he rag e m ol es ti ng or be in g ch arg ed wit h

m ol es ti ng an y ch il d, n o o t h e r im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy were fo un d on hi s

co m pu te r, an d typic al ly in Hud so n’ s ex pe rie nc e of fen de rs are fo un d wit h la rg e

vo lu m es of c hi ld po rn og rap hy in t he ir p os se ss io n.

The go ve rn m en t’s se co nd wit ness w as Mi ch el e A lf or d. Sh e can di dl y de sc rib ed

he r ex te nd ed se xu al rel at io ns hi p wit h Deat he rag e, in cl ud in g th ree- way se xu a l

in te rco ur se wit h Deat he rag e an d hi s wife o n o n e o c c a s io n. At so m e po in t, sh e

te st ifi ed

, Deat he rag e be ga n ta lk in g ab ou t hi s “ fli rty” twel ve -y ear- ol d ba bysit te r, ta lk

th at pr og res se d to in crea si ng ly gr ap hi c de s c rip ti on s of se xu al co nt act wit h th e

ba bysit te r, he r te n- y ear- ol d fri en d, an d a se ve n- ye a r -o ld fem al e ne ig hb or

. Tho ug h

Alfo rd in it ia ll y di d no t be li ev e th es e acco un ts of se xu al co nt act wit h y ou ng gi rls

, sh e

ev en tua ll y be cam e co nc ern ed an d rep or te d th es e ta lk s to th e Ru ss el lv il le po li ce. They

were co nc ern ed bu t ne ed ed pr oo f. Alfo rd th en pr od uc ed th e on li ne ch at wit h

Deat he rag e th at be cam e Exh ib it 1. Sh e al so as ke d hi m “ to br in g ph ot os to pr ov e th at

he was n’t lying to m e ab ou t wha t was go in g on ,” an d ag reed to wear a wire to reco rd

th e co nv ers at io n on Ju ly 18 th at be cam e Exh ib it 3. Alfo rd de ni ed as ki ng Deat he rag e

to do wnl oa d ch il d po rn og rap hy an d de ni ed an y in te nt to vi ew ch il d po rn og rap hy wit h

hi m

. On cro ss ex am in at io n, Alfo rd ad m it te d kn owi ng Deat he rag e was m arri ed wit h

two ch il dr en whe n th ei r affa ir be ga n. Sh e al so ad m it te d be in g se xu al ly in vo lv ed wit h

ot he r m arri ed m en

, po st in g nu d e pi ct ur es of he rs el f on th e in te rn et

, an d be in g

-6

-in vo lv ed in “ swi ng in g” se xu al pa rti es in th e Fayette vi ll e area

. Sh e de ni ed ev er act in g

li ke s h e w a s t u rn ed on by Deat he rag e’s st or ie s of ha vi ng se x wit h a ch il d, or ev er

as ki ng hi m to le av e hi s wife, or be in g m ad at hi m whe n sh e wen t to th e po li ce. Sh e

as ke d h i m f

o r p ic tu res be cau se he to ld he r he was ta ki ng pi ct ur es of hi s se xu al

co nt act s wi th th e b ab y si tt er an d t he po li ce h ad ask ed for pro of

.

The fir st de fen se wit ne ss was a li cen se d se x- of fen de r tre at m en t th erap is t who

ha d ad m in is te red se ve ral te st s an d op in ed th at Deat he rag e pr es en te d a “ lo w or l o w

m od erat e ris k” of reo ffen di ng

. The th erap is t ha d no t read th e on li ne ch at

, li st en ed to

th e w i r e reco rd in g, or vi ewed th e im ag es ret rie ve d fro m Deat he rag e’s co m pu te r.

Mo re si gn ifi can tl y

, hi s op in io n was ba se d on Deat he rag e’s de ni al s, whi ch th e di st ric t

co ur t fo un d n ot cred ib le , so hi s o pi ni on was g iv en li tt le if a ny weig ht

. 3

Deat he rag e te st ifi ed in hi s o wn de fen se whe n th e he ari ng res um ed on e week

la te r. He bl a med hi s wife fo r vi si ti ng th e “ Adu lt Fri en d Fi nd er” web si te to fin d a

pa rtn er fo r th ree- way se x, whi ch le d to a rel at io ns hi p wit h Alfo rd th at co nt in ue d lo ng

aft er hi s wife lo st in te res t. He as se rte d th at hi s de sc rip ti on s of se xu al en co un te rs wit h

un de rag e g irl s wer e p ro m pt ed by fan ta si es Alfo rd br ou gh t up du rin g th e la st m on th

or two of th ei r rel at io ns hi p; th at no ne of th e act iv it y he de sc rib ed in fact oc cu rred ;

an d th at hi s fan ta sy de sc rip ti on s of ab us in g y ou ng gi rls were in te nd ed to

, an d di d in

fact

, ap pe al to he r se xu al ap pe ti te s, whi ch in tu rn aro us ed hi m

. He ad m it te d vi si ti ng

th e pe do ph il e web si te s li st ed on Exh ib it 2 an d do wnl oa di ng th e si x vi de os an d ot he r

im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy bu t cl ai m ed he on ly di d s o at Alfo rd ’s in si st en ce an d

aft er sh e th reat en ed to rev eal th ei r affa ir to hi s wife

. He de ni ed be in g “ tu rn ed on by

se x wit h ch il dr en ,” or ha vi ng an “ in ap pr op ria te rel at io ns hi p” wit h hi s ch il dr en or

an y on e el se ’s. On cro ss ex am

, Deat he rag e te st ifi ed th at he in te n d e d t o gi ve th e

The di st ric t co ur t as ke d th is wit ne ss : “ W ou ld y ou r res ul t b e d iff eren t i f y ou 3

ha d m ad e th e as su m

pt io n t ha t h e h ad ha d s om e co nt act wit h ch il dr en ? ” The ex pe rt

an swe red , “ Obv io us ly, y es .”

-7

-do wnl oa de d vi de os an d im ag es to Alfo rd bu t ne ve r di d; th at he us ed Lim ewir e as th e

se arch en gi ne to fin d t h e v i d e o s b ut ha d ne ve r lo ok ed at ch il d po rn og rap hy be fo re

Ju ly 14 ; an d th at he “ pr ev ie wed ” th e do wnl oa de d vi de os bu t ne ve r watc he d th em in

fu ll le ng th

. He co ul d no t ex pl ai n why th e sa m e y ou ng gi rl was in m os t of th e vi de os

.

Rec al le d as a reb ut ta l wit ne ss

, Age nt Hud so n te st ifi ed th at th e go ve rn m en t ha d

re-e xa m in ed Deat he rag e’s c om pu te r be twee n th e two he ari ng da y s an d de te rm in ed

th at th e op erat in g syste m was in st al le d on Ju ne 26 , 2 00 8. It was hi s un de rs ta nd in g

th at a n e w op erat in g syste m m ay writ e ov er pr io r fil es on a ha rd dr iv e, m ak in g it

im po ss ib le for

ev en a fo ren si c ex am in er t o re tri ev e th em

.

IV.

At th e co nc lu si on of th e ev id en ti ary he ari ng

, de fen se co un se l arg ue d th at

,

al th ou gh th e “ fact s are ve ry so rd id ,” Deat he rag e is n o t a typic al ch il d po rn og rap hy

of fen de r be cau se he on ly do wnl oa de d th e po rn og rap hi c m at eri al s in on e fo ur -d ay

pe rio d fo r Alfo rd ’s gr at ifi cat io n. Thu s, he is no t li ke ly to reo ffen d, th e ch il d

po rn og rap hy gu id el in es sh ou ld no t ap pl y

, an d “ pr ob at io n is an ap pr op ria te se nt en ce”

be cau se he ha s su ffer ed en ou gh fro m hi s po or m or al jud gm e n t

. Th e go ve rn m en t

ag reed th at th e gu id el in es are no t ap pr op ria te : wit h th e li es pu t fo rth in Deat he rag e’s

un be li ev ab le te st im on y , “ th e gu id el in es are to o lo w.” Ba s e d o n t h e wire reco rd in g

an d on li ne ch at

, th e vi de os

, an d Deat he rag e’s effo rt to “ pu ll on e ov er on th e Co ur t,”

th e go ve rn m en t ur ge d a st at ut or y m ax im um se nt en ce of te n y ears or at le as t th e hi gh

en d o f th e ad vi so ry

ran ge

.

Pri or to im

po si ng se nt en ce, th e di st ri c t c o ur t rev ie wed th e ev id en ce in so m e

de ta il

. The co ur t no te d th at th e na rro w fo ur -d ay win do w in whi ch Deat he rag e

do wnl oa de d ch il d po rn og rap hy was ev id en ce in fav or of hi s cl ai m th e “ he is ou ts id e

th e ran ge of th e typic al de fen da nt .” Howev er, th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at th is fact or was

ou twei gh ed by its res ol ut io n o f th e cri ti cal cred ib il it y is su e:

-8

-It’s a lo t of im ag es of ch il d po rn

, an d th e Co ur t un fo rtu na te ly ha d

to vi ew th is

. As I reca ll

, se ve ral of th e vi de os are . . . of t he same lit tl e

gi rl . . . .

Anyon e who wou ld do wnl oa d th es e th in gs m us t ha ve so m e pr et ty

si ck reas on fo r it an d, of co ur s e

, i t i s a g a in st th e la w. Oth er ev id en ce

ag ai ns t Mr. Deat he rag e is th e ch at [an d th e wire reco rd in g]. Bo th on th e

ch at an d on th e wire Mr. Deat he rag e de sc rib es se xu al act s wit h ch il dr en

in gr ap hi c de ta il

. And I th ou gh t at his pl ea hear in g th at th at de ta il was

so ex te ns iv e th at

, if he di dn ’t do th es e th in gs

, he real ly ha d a he ck of an

im ag in at io n, an d I s ti ll th in k t ha t.

I st il l th in k th at th e go ve rn m en t ha s es ta bl is he d m or e li ke ly th an

no t t ha t t he se are re al th in gs th at ha pp en ed

. . . .

The co ur t al so reject ed

, ba se d on it s fin di ng as to he r cred ib il it y

, Deat he rag e’s cl ai m

th at th e reco rd ed ta lk s were th e pr od uc t of Alfo rd ’s ve ng efu l m ot iv e to en tra p hi m

.

The co ur t t he n c on cl ud ed :

[T]his who le cas e is ex tre m el y so rd id , and it is ve ry

di ffi cu lt for

m e. Bu t I

. . . am no t co nv in ced th at Mr. Deat he rag e was jus t m ak in g up

e v e r yth in g in th at ch at or

. . . on th at wire

. And th e fact th at h e

do wnl oa de d th es e th in gs

, whi ch are to ta ll y di sg us ti ng

, an d ne ve r

sh owe d th em to Mi ch el e wou ld in di cat e to m e th at he was do in g th is fo r

hi s o wn g rat ifi cat io n.

And I, th eref

or e, fin d th at a gu id el in e se nt en ce is fai r [aft er]

co ns id eri ng all th e fac to rs in 18 [U.S.C.] § 35 53 (a).

The co ur t im

po se d a se nt en c e of 70 m on th s in pr is on

, th e bo tt om of th e

ad vi so ry ran ge

, fo ll owe d by te n ye a r s of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. In ad di ti on

, th e co ur t

im po se d t en sp eci al co nd it io ns of s up erv is ed rel eas e. Defen se co un se l re sp on de d:

W e ob ject to th e n o . . . ad ul t po rn og rap hy pr oh ib it io n. W e al so

ob ject to th e un su pe rv is ed co nt act wit h an y on e un de r 18 wit ho ut

-9

-pe rm is si on fro m th e p ro ba ti on be cau se he st il l h as y ou ng ch il dr en th at

he sh ou ld be pe rm it te d to se e. W e ob ject to no co m

pu te r own ers hi p or

in te rn et acce ss wit ho ut pe rm is si on fro m th e pr ob at io n be cau se

. . . in th is

da y an d ag e, an d pa rti cu la rly in or de r to ge t a job

, he is go in g to ne ed a

co m pu te r.

. . . [H]e sh ou ld ha ve th e rig ht to ha ve in te rn et acce ss an d to

ad ul t p or no gr ap hy with ou t i nv ol vi ng pro ba ti on

.

THE COURT: I am go in g to l e a v e t ho se co nd it io ns th ere. W e

freq ue nt ly se e i n ch il d po rn og rap hy cas es th at pe op le al so ha ve ad ul t

po rn og rap hy, an d so we wou ld jus t li ke to ke ep th es e se x of fen de rs

away fro m po rn og r a p h y. I kn ow th at y ou r po si ti on an d Mr.

Deat he rag e’s po si ti on is he is no t a da ng er to m in or s. I h a v e fo un d

ot he rwis e.

. . . [ H] e m or e li ke ly t ha n no t i s a tt ract ed to m in or s an d ha s

ha d so m e c on ta ct wit h m in or s an d

. . . so th os e are m y reas on s.

. . . [ W]i t h r es pe ct to co m

pu te rs

. . . he go t th e po rn og rap hy fro m a

co m pu te r.

. . . [E]ven fo r th os e who ha ve be en co nv ic te d of do in g th at

,

t h e r e are de vi ces to pu t on th e co m pu te r, as I m en ti on ed whi le I w a s

im po si ng th es e co nd it io ns

, an d wit h th e ai d of pr ob at io n

. . . ev en th os e

pe op le are all owe d to us e a co m pu te r as lo ng as th ey ha ve th is de vi ce.

V.

W e se t fo rth

, wit h so m e ab br ev ia ti ng

, th e fo ur sp eci al co nd it io ns th at

Deat he rag e ch al le ng es on ap pe al :

4. The de fen da nt sh al l no t pu rch as e, po ss es s

. . . or us e an y m ed ia fo rm s

co nt ai ni ng po rn og rap hi c im ag es or se xu al ly o r i e n te d m at eri al s

in cl ud in g

. . . . m at eri al s c o n ta in in g “ se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t” as

de fin ed in 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 6( 2)

.

5. The de fen da nt sh al l no t own or us e an y co m pu te r o r de vi ce

. . . wit ho ut fir st rece iv in g writ te n pe rm is si on fro m th e pr ob at io n of fic er.

. . . The de fen da nt sh al l ag ree to th e in st al la ti on o f co m pu te r m on it or in g

so ftwa re an d h ard ware ap pr ov ed by the pro ba ti on off ic e . . . .

-1 0-2

. D e f en da nt sh al l pa rti ci pa te in se xu al of fen de r tre at m en t un de r th e

gu id an ce an d su pe rv is io n of th e P r o b a t io n Offi cer an d ab id e by th e

ru le s, req ui rem en ts an d co nd it io ns of th e tre at m en t pr og ram

. . . . [T]he

de fen da nt sh al l ab st ai n fro m th e us e of al co ho l th ro ug ho ut th e co ur se of

tre at m en t an d s ub m it to tes ti ng

.

8. The de fen da nt sh al l di sc lo se bu si ne ss an d pe rs on al f i n a nc ia l

in fo rm at io n u po n re qu es t o f th e U.S. Pro ba ti on Offic e.

W e ha ve two ov erri di ng pro bl em s wi th Deat he rag e’s co nt en ti on s o n a pp eal

.

Fi rs t, a pr im ary fo cu s is th e al le ge d in ad eq ua cy of th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io ns in

res po ns e to de fen se co un se l’s ob jecti on s at th e co nc lu si on of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

,

fo r ex am pl e, rep eat ed as se rti on s th at an ex pl an at io n di d no t refl ect th e in di vi du al iz ed

fin di ng s ou r cas es req ui re. Bu t t ha t o bjec ti on was n ot m ad e to th e d is tri ct co ur t. A

ge ne ral ob

jecti on at se nt en ci ng to th e su bs ta nt iv e res tri ct io n i mp o se d by a sp eci al

co nd it io n is no t en ou gh to pr es erv e an al le ga ti on th at th e co ur t di d n o t a d e qu at el y

ex pl ai n it s sp eci fic reas on s fo r im po si ng th e sp eci al co nd it io n. See St ul ts

, 57 5 F.3 d

at 85 4; Uni te d St at es v. Si m on s, 61 4 F.3 d 47 5, 47 8- 79 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). The refo re, we

rev ie w th e co ur t’s ex pl an at io ns fo r pl ai n erro r, a “ fo rm id ab le ” st an da rd of rev ie w th at

is no t m et if “ th e re a s o n s f o r t h e im po si ti on

. . . are di sc ern ab le fro m th e reco rd .”

Uni te d St at es v. Po it ra, 64 8 F.3 d 8 84 , 8 89 -9 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); se e ge ne ral ly Un it ed

St at es v. Ol an o, 5 07 U.S. 72 5, 7 32 (19 93 ). 4

In th e o p i ni on of th e au th or an d Ju dg e Bo wm an , b ecau se sp eci al co nd it io ns 4

of su pe rv is e d r e l e as e can be an ti ci pa te d in ev ery se x of fen de r se nt en ci ng

, an d ou r

st an da rd s fo r im

po si ng th em are no w w e ll -es ta bl is he d, we sh ou ld st op do in g pl ai n

erro r rev ie w of

th is pr oc ed

ur al is su e

. Lib eral pl ai n erro r rev ie w i n whi ch we pa rs e

th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an a t i o n an d th en sc ro un ge th e reco rd to fin d su pp or t fo r a

pe rcei ve d d efi ci en cy

in vi te s d efen se co un se l n ot to ob ject, si nc e an ob

jecti on gi ve s

t he di st ric t co ur t an op po rtu ni ty to co rrec t an y de fic ie nc y

. In ou r vi ew, if co un s e l

d o e s no t ti m el y ob

ject th at th e reas on s fo r im po si ng a co nd it io n ha ve no t b e e n

ad eq ua te ly ex pl aine d, de fe nda nt has vo lu nt ari ly rel in qu is he d th e is su e, an d we sh ou ld

de em it waiv ed

, no t m erel y fo rfei te d. Cf. Uni te d S ta te s v. Harri so n, 39 3 F.3 d 80 5,

80 6 (8 th Cir . 20 05 ).

-1 1-Seco nd

, Deat he rag e’s arg um en ts o n ap pe al refl ect th e m ajor pr em is e he

un su cces sf

ul ly ur ge d at se nt en ci ng -- th at he is si m pl y a on e-t im e of

fen d e r who

do wnl oa de d ch il d po rn og r a p h y ov er a fo ur -d ay pe rio d an d was no t sh own to be

“ ob se ss ed wit h or ad di ct ed to ch il d or ad ul t po rn og rap hy.” The se nt en ci ng reco rd is

to th e co nt rary. Onc e th e di st ric t co ur t mad e ad ve rs e cred ib il it y fin di ng s, it s m os t

di ffi cu lt ta sk was to fas hi on a se nt en ce th at is “ su ffi ci en t bu t no t g r e a t er th an

ne ces sa ry .” 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Giv en Deat he rag e’s fal se de ni al s, li ke ly ab us e of

th ree y ou ng gi rls an d hi s own ch il dr en

, an d po ss es si on o f a l a r g e qu an ti ty of vi le

ch il d p o r n o g rap hy, im

po si ng a m ax im

um pr is on te rm (te n y ears ) an d a li fet im e of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e warra nt ed so m e co ns id erat io n. The co ur t in st ead im po se d a pr is on

te rm of 70 m on th s -- wit ho ut do u b t a su bs ta nt ia l pu ni sh m en t bu t co ns id erab ly le ss

th an se nt en ces th at ha ve be en im po se d on ot he r da ng ero us ch il d se x of fen de rs -- an d

on ly te n y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. In th es e ci rcu m st an ces

, st rin ge nt sp eci al

co nd it io ns were ne ces sa ry “ to refl ect th e se rio us ne ss of th e of fen se ” an d to “ pr ot ect

th e pu bl ic ”

-- y ou ng ch il dr en -- “ fro m fu rth er cri m es of th e de fen da nt .” 18 U.S.C.

§ 35 53 (a)( 2) (A), (C). On th is ex te ns iv e ev id en ti ary reco rd th at in cl ud es th e co ur t’s

care fu l fin di ng s of fact

, li tt le ad di ti on al ex pl an at io n was ne ed ed to m ak e th e ne ed fo r

care fu ll y tai lo red sp eci al co nd it io ns “ di sc ern ab le fro m th e rec or d.”

A. Turn in g to th e s p e c ifi c co nd it io ns at is su e, Deat he rag e fir st arg ue s th at

Sp eci al Co nd it io n 4 was an ab us e of th e co ur t’s di sc ret io n be cau se it in cl ud es a ba n

on ad ul t po rn og rap hy no t su pp or te d by ind ivi dua liz ed find in gs an d im po si ng a gr eat er

de pr iv at io n of li be rty th an ne ces sa ry

. W e care fu ll y rev ie w br oa d ba ns on po ss es si ng

se xu al ly ex pl ic it m at eri al s be cau se th ey im pl ic at e im po rta nt Fi rs t Am en dm en t rig ht s.

See, e.g

. , U n i t e d S t a t es v. Kell y

, 62 5 F.3 d 51 6, 52 0- 22 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Thu s, in

Uni te d St at es v. Bend er, 566 F.3 d 74 8, 75 2 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ), we va cat ed a br oa d ba n

on a d u lt po rn og rap hy ex pl ai ne d on ly by th e di st ric t co ur t’s op in io n th at “ a se x

of fen de r do es n’ t h a v e a n y bu si ne ss lo ok in g at Pla yb oy m ag azi ne .” Bu t we ha ve

up he ld co nd it io ns th at were ob vi ou sl y r e l e v an t to th e ch il d po rn og rap hy o ffen se at

-1 2-is su e or to th e de fen da nt ’s hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs

. See Uni te d St at es v. And ers on

,

66 4 F.3 d 75 8, 76 8- 69 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Uni te d St at es v. W ie do wer, 63 4 F.3 d 49 0, 49 6-

97 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Tho m

ps on

, 65 3 F.3 d at 69 3- 96 ; Uni te d St at es v. Bo st on

, 49 4 F.3 d

66 0, 66 7- 68 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ); Uni te d St at es v. Ri st in e, 33 5 F.3 d 69 2, 69 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 03 ). Here, gi ve n th e ob vi ou s rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e ch il d po rn og rap hy of fen se

,

Deat he r a g e ’s li ke ly ab us e of y ou ng ch il dr en

, an d hi s so rd id affa ir wit h Alfo rd

, th e

di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ba nn in g po ss es si on of a l l s e x u a ll y

or ie nt ed m at eri al s d ur in g h is ten y ears of s up erv is ed rel eas e.

B. Deat he rag e ne xt a r g u es th at Sp eci al Co nd it io n 5 is an un reas on ab le

res tri ct io n on hi s im

po rta nt rig ht s to us e co m

pu te r de vi ces an d to acce ss th e in te rn et

be cau se he on ly us ed hi s co m pu te r to rece iv e an d po ss es s ch il d po rn og rap hy, li ke th e

de fen da nt s in W ie do wer, 63 4 F.3d at 49 7, and in Cru m e, 42 2 F .3d at 73 3. It is tru e

th at Deat he rag e di d no t us e co m pu te rs to pr od uc e or di st rib ut e ch il d po rn og rap hy, bu t

co m pu te r us e an d in te rn et acce ss were cen tra l to hi s ch il d p o r n o gr ap hy of fen se as

well as hi s se xu al rel at io ns hi p wit h Alfo rd

. Th e d i st ric t co ur t le arn ed at th e earl ie r

de te nt io n he ari ng th at Deat he rag e ha d vi ol at ed a co nd it io n of pr et ria l rel eas e th at he

ha ve no in te rn et acce ss by acce ss in g hi s “ MySpace ” pa ge (ac c o rd in g to de fen se

co un se l, be cau se a fri en d acce ss ed Deat he rag e’s MySpace acco un t, ag ai n bl am in g a

vi ol at io n on so m eo ne el se ). Deat he rag e arg ue s th at

, un de r th is co nd it io n, he “ si m pl y

w i ll no t be ab le to fu nc ti on in so ci et y whi le on su pe rv is io n.” Bu t th is co nt en ti o n

ig no res th e co ur t’s ex pl an at i o n th at th e “ ba n” wil l be li m it ed

, if he so de si res

, to

in st al li ng ap pr ov ed co m

pu te r m on it or in g de vi ces an d co ns en ti ng to un an no un ced

e x a mi na ti on of hi s co m

pu te rs an d st or ag e de vi ces

. W e ha ve rep eat ed ly up he l d

li m it ed co nd it io ns on co m pu te r us ag e an d in te rn et acce ss th at were r e la te d to th e

of fen se or to th e de fen da nt ’s hi st or y

. See Uni te d St at es v. Mo rai s, 67 0 F.3 d 88 9, 89 5-

9 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Uni te d St at es v. Mayo, 64 2 F.3 d 62 8, 63 2- 33 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 1 ) ;

St ul ts

, 57 5 F.3 d at 85 0, 85 5- 56 ; Ben de r, 56 6 F.3 d at 75 0- 52 ; Bo st on

, 49 4 F.3 d at 66 8;

Ri st in e, 33 5 F .3d at 6 96 . Con di ti on 5 was no t an ab us e o f th e co ur t’s d is cret io n.

-1 3-C. Deat he rag e ne xt arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pl ai n erro r in im

po si ng

Sp eci al Co nd it io n 2 be cau se it “ ba ns al co ho l co ns um pt io n an d or de rs m an da to ry

te st in g of al co ho l us e th ro ug ho ut th e co ur se of se x offe nd er treat m en t.” In su pp or t,

he rel ie s on ou r m a n y c a s e s q ue st io ni ng th e effi cacy of al co ho l ba ns an d rev ers in g

br oa d pr oh ib it io ns un rel at ed to th e of fen se or th e of

fen de r at is su e. See Si m on s, 61 4

F.3 d at 4 8 0 (co ll ect in g cas es ). Thi s arg um en t

-- no t m ad e to th e di st ric t co ur t

--

ig no res th e co nt ex t of th e sp eci al co nd it io n, th at Deat he rag e ab st ai n fro m th e us e of

al co ho l o nl y

du rin g t he co ur se of s ex off en de r tr eat m en t.

D e a t h erag e’s arra y of se xu al m is co nd uc t, an d pe rs is te nt effo rts to de ny an d

co ve r up th at m is co nd uc t, cl earl y warra nt ed m an da to ry se x of fen de r tre at m en t.

In de ed

, be fo re ad dr es si ng th e te rms of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, th e di st ric t co ur t

reco m m en de d to th e Bu reau of Pri so ns “ th at whi le he is in carc erat ed

, he pa rti ci pa te

in m en ta l he al th tre at m en t, in te ns iv e se x offe nd er treat m en t, and in ed uc at io na l and

vo cat io na l pr og ram s.” Deat he rag e do es no t ch al le ng e th e pr im ary pu rp os e of Sp eci al

Co nd it io n 2, th e li ke ly ne ed fo r po st -in carc erat io n tre at m en t. He co m pl ai ns on ly th at

th e al co ho l re st ric ti on is un reas on ab le be cau se he ha s no hi st or y of al co ho l or dr ug

ab u s e

. O f co ur se , i f he is no t a dr in ke r, th e res tri ct io n wil l ha ve no ad ve rs e im pa ct

o n hi m

. Mo re im

po rta nt ly, th e de fen da nt ha s th e bu rd en to es ta bl is h th a t a s p e c i a l

co nd it io n is un reas on ab le

. Here, th e reco rd is de vo id o f e v i d e n ce th at al co ho l

co ns um pt io n do es no t ad ve rs el y affe ct a co ur se of se x of fen de r tre at m en t. Co m

m on

se ns e su gg es ts th at tre at m en t ex pe rts wou ld st ro ng ly arg ue th at it do es

. The di st ric t

co ur t co m

m it te d n o p la in erro r in im po si ng Sp eci al Co nd it io n 2

.

D. Fi na ll y

, D e a t h erag e arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pl ai n erro r in

im po si ng Sp eci al Co nd it io n 8 be cau se req uir ing him to di sc lo se fin an ci al in fo rm at io n

to th e pr ob at io n of

fic e up on req ue st was un rel at ed to th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on

. The

di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n whe n it im po se d th is co nd it io n -- “ be cau se so m et im es se x

of fen de rs sp en d m on ey o n t h e i nt ern et or el se whe re to pu rch as e po rn og rap hi c

m at eri al s”

-- su gg es ts

, as De a t he rag e arg ue s on ap pe al

, th at it was im pr op erl y

-1 4-im

po se d be cau se of Deat he rag e’s m em be rs hi p in th e un iv ers e of se x of fen de rs

, rat he r

th an an in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry. On th e ot he r ha nd

, th e reco rd refl ect s th at Deat he rag e

was in arre ars on hi s co ur t-o rd ered ch il d su pp or t ob li ga ti on s, a fact or we c i te d in

up ho ld in g a si m il ar sp eci al co nd it io n in Uni te d St at es v. Cam p, 41 0 F.3 d 10 42

, 10 46

(8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). Alt ho ug h we ha ve so m e do ub t ab ou t th is sp eci al co nd it io n,

Deat he rag e fai ls to sh ow sp eci fic h ard sh ip or ad ve rs e effe ct

, an d th e co nd it io n is

li m it ed to m on it or in g hi s fin an ci al affa irs rat he r th an pr oh ib it in g sp eci fic bu si ne ss or

fin an ci al act iv it ie s. Bas ed on th e rig or ou s na tu re of pl ai n erro r rev ie w, an d th e

di st ric t co ur t’s ab un da nt op po rtu ni ty to am en d or am el io rat e a n y un reas on ab le

ad ve rs e im

pa ct du rin g th e te rm of Deat he rag e’s su pe rv is ed rel eas e, we co nc lu de th at

,

ev en if Sp eci al Co nd it io n 8 was no t ba se d on an in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry, th ere was no

pl ai n e rro r.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, t he jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n t he res ul t.

Bec au se ou r rev ie w i s fo r pl ai n erro r an d be cau se ou r pr eced en t di ct at es th at

we se arch th e reco rd in an at te m pt to di sc ern th e reas on s fo r th e im po se d co nd it io ns

,

I rel uc ta nt ly con cu r in th e res ul t re ach ed by the m ajor it y

.

I al so do writ e se pa rat el y

, ho wev er, to ex pr es s m y de ep co nc ern fo r ou r ci rcu it 's

rap id ero s i o n of ap pe ll at e rev ie w of sp eci al co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Our

pr eced en t is cl ear: "When craf ti ng a sp eci al co nd it io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e

, t he

di st ric t co ur t mus t m ak e in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry in to t h e f a c t s an d ci rcu m st an ces

un de rlyin g a cas e an d m ak e su ffi ci en t fin di ng s on th e reco rd so as to en su re th at th e

sp eci al co nd it io n sa ti sf

ie s th e st at ut or y req ui rem en ts ." Uni t e d St at es v. Fo rd e, 66 4

F. 3 d 1 2 1 9

, 12 22 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on om it te d)

(em ph as is ad de d)

. W e co nt in ue to ci te th is la ng ua ge in ou r op in io ns di sc us si ng th e

im po si ti on of s pe ci al co nd it io ns

. W e co nt in ue to em ph as iz e d is tri ct co ur ts m

us t b e

-1 5-c a r efu l to "co nd uc t an in qu iry on an in di vi du al iz ed ba si s" an d "n ot im po se sp eci a l

co nd it io ns cat eg or ic al ly on al l in di vi du al s co nv ic te d of cert ai n of fen s e s

. " Uni te d

St at es v. Mo rai s, 67 0 F.3 d 88 9, 89 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Yet, we ha ve effe ct iv el y be gu n

ero di ng th is req ui rem en t by su gg es ti ng th at "'[a ]t so m e po in t, th ere m us t be a li m it to

th e ne ed fo r an in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry, be cau se cert ai n ch arac te ris ti cs m ay jus ti fy

co rres po nd in g co nd it io ns fo r vi rtu al ly al l of fen de rs wit h su ch ch arac te ris ti cs .'" Ant e

a t 3 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Sp rin gs to n, 65 0 F.3 d 11 53

, 11 56 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 1 1 )

( v a cat ed on ot he r gr ou nd s) (em ph as is ad de d) ). I can no t reco nc il e th is ne wl y

su gg es te d ap pr oa ch wit h th e cl earl y es t a bl is he d la w of ou r ci rcu it as to sp eci al

co nd it io ns ha vi ng to be ba se d on th e "n at ur e an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e [p art ic ul ar]

of fen se an d th e hi st or y an d ch ar a c t e ris ti cs of th e [in di vi du al ] de fen da nt ." Uni te d

St at es v. Ben de r, 56 6 F.3 d 74 8, 7 5 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d

ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thu s, un le ss an d un ti l o u r en ba nc co ur t de ci de s ot he rwis e, ou r

ci rcu it 's pr eced en t req ui res di st ric t co ur ts to m ak e an in qu iry ba se d on an in di vi du al

ba si s an d pr oh ib it s th em fro m im po si ng "a sp eci al co nd it io n on al l th os e fo un d gu il ty

of a pa rti cu la r of

fen se ." Uni te d S ta te s v . Davi s, 4 52 F.3d 99 1, 9 95 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

W e al so co nt in ue to em ph as iz e th at di st ri c t co ur ts m us t "m ak e su ffi ci en t

fin di ng s on th e reco rd so as to en su re th at th e sp eci al co nd it io n sa ti sf ie s th e st at ut or y

req ui rem en ts ." Fo rd e, 66 4 F.3 d at 1 2 2 2 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d ci ta ti on

om it te d)

. Yet, we wil li ng ly pa rs e th ro ug h ex te ns iv e reco rd s, as we di d in th is cas e,

en ga gi ng in un as si st ed se arch es of ev id en ce to fin d so m e su pp or t— an y su pp or t— fo r

th e im po se d co nd it io ns an d fo rg et ti ng it is th e di st ric t co ur t's res po ns ib il it y in th e fir st

in st an ce t o p ro vi de us wit h t he reas on s beh in d it s dec is io n. See, e.g., Uni te d S ta te s

v. Sch aefe r, 67 5 F.3 d 11 22

, 11 24 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 12 ) ("Whi le th is co ur t en co ur ag es

de ta il ed fin di ng s, it is en ou gh th at th e ba si s fo r th e im po se d co nd it io n can be

di sc ern ed fro m th e reco rd ."); Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on

, 65 3 F.3 d 68 8, 69 4 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ) (h ol di ng a sp eci al co nd it io n ne ed no t be va cat ed "i f th e ba si s fo r th e im po se d

co nd it io n can be di sc ern ed fro m t h e reco rd "). W e cal l th es e un as si st ed se arch es a

"h arm le ss erro r" rev ie w. Bu t at so m e po in t, we m us t al so rem em

be r we are no t ferr et s

-1 6-ob li ga te d to si ft th ro ug h vo lu m in ou s reco rd s in se arch of so me ev id en ce whi ch m ig ht

su pp or t th e im

po se d co n d i t i o n s

. W e m us t al so rem em

be r th at th e res po ns ib il it y to

m ak e su ffi ci en t fin di ng s on th e reco rd li es wit h th e di st ric t co ur ts

, no t ou r co ur t. W e

m us t rem em

be r th ere is a di ffer en ce be twee n reas on s whi ch are eas il y di sc ern ed fro m

th e reco rd

, se e, e.g

., Uni t e d St at es v. Carl so n, 40 6 F.3 d 52 9, 53 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )

(u ph ol di ng a sp eci al co nd it io n in th e ab se nc e of de ta il ed fin di ng s be cau se th e reco rd

cl earl y "jus t ifi ed , i f in de ed no t co m pe ll ed " th e im

po se d co nd it io n) , a nd reas on s we

sp ecu la te to be t h e ba si s fo r th e im po se d co nd it io ns on ly aft er we ha ve ex te ns iv el y

se arch ed fo r th em in

, or ev en ou ts id e, th e reco rd

, se e, e.g

., Uni te d Stat es v. Mos le y

,

67 2 F.3d 58 6, 59 1- 92 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (lo ok in g to th e Ph y si ci an 's Desk Refe ren ce to

ex pl ai n t he po ss ib le effe ct of a lc oh ol on in di vi du al s tak in g cert ai n m ed ic at io ns an d

to su pp or t, in pa rt, th e di st ric t co ur t's de ci si on to im po se a sp eci al co nd it io n ba nn in g

th e u se of a ny alco ho l).

Bec au se I fear ou r rev ie w of sp eci al co nd it io ns of su pe rv is ed rel eas e is he ad ed

in t h e w r o n g d i rect io n, I ur ge us no t to fo rg et ou r pr eced en t st il l req ui res "a

pa rti cu la riz ed sh owi ng of th e ne ed fo r th e [s pe ci al ] co nd it io n in each cas e." Uni te d

St at es v. Kell y

, 62 5 F.3 d 51 6, 52 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). W e m us t, th eref

or e, no t al lo w th e

cat eg or ic al im

po si ti on of sp eci al co nd it io ns "o n al l th os e fo un d gu il ty of a pa rti cu la r

of fen se ," Dav is

, 45 2 F.3 d at 99 5, an d ho ld di st ric t co ur ts acco un ta bl e fo r th e fai lu re

to sh ow th ey en ga ge d in an in di vi du al iz ed in qu iry by m ak in g su ffi ci en t fin di ng s on

th e rec or d.

I th eref or e rel uc ta nt ly con cu r in th e res ul t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 7-