## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 2921 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C HA RLES G O O D W IN, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 2:11- cr-20036- RM -BG C- 1

—Richar d M il ls, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 15, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AY 8, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. Ch ar l es Goodw i n ple aded gui l ty to knowingl y f ailin g to re gi ste r and up date a r egi str ati on a s a se x offender, as r equi red b y th e S ex Offender Regi str ati on a nd N oti fi cati on Act (“S OR N A ”)
. H e was sente nced to 27 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, to be f ol l owed by a l i fe t er m o f s u p er vi sed r el eas e, subj ect to ten spe ci al co ndi ti o ns . Goo dwi n cl ai m s th at the re l ev an t SORN A pro vi si on i s a n unconsti tuti onaldel ega ti on o f2 N o. 12

- 2921

T he g ov ern m en t’ s b rief m ak es referen ce to ad d ition al f acts 1 contai ned in th e polic e re port from thi s inci dent. This report all eges condu ctf ar beyond thatused as the basis f or the convict i on. To the e xt en tthatthe pol i c e re por t c onf l i c t s with a nd i n c l u de s i n f o r mat i o n e x t r a n e o u s t o th a tc o n t a i n e d i n t he c ha rging doc umen t, pl e a a gr e e m e nt, o r pl e a c ol l oquy , we do n o t r el y o n its d es cr ip tio n o f G o o d w in ’s co n d u ct . C f
. S hepa rd (co n tin u ed ...) l e g i s l a t i v e a u th o r i t y ; a r g u e s th a t th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o mm i tt ed pl ain e r r o rb y mis ca l cul at i nghi s adv i sory S en te nc i ngGui del i ne s r an g e f o r supe r vi se d r el ea se a nd then i m posi ng a se n tence withi n that m i scal cul ate d ra nge; and chal l enges f our condi ti ons ofhi s s up ervis ed re l eas e. W e fi nd hi s no n del ega ti on cl ai m unpersuasi ve, and ther ef or e a ffi rm h is c onvi cti on. W e furtherhol d that the er ro neous cal cul ati on of the advi sory G u id el i nes r an g e an d the i m po si ti o n o fs pecialc o ndi ti o ns wi th o ut ex pl an at i o n by th e di st r i ctc o ur t o rs uppo r t i n the re cor d w ar ra nt va cating hi s s entence and re m an ding to the di str i ct c ourtf orr ese ntenci ng.

I. B ACK GR OUN D A
. G o o dw in’s H isto ry & C urren t O ffense I n 199 4, Goodw i n p lea d ed no conte st to a char ge of an at tem pted l ew d and la sci vi ous a ct in th e p re sence of a c hi l d. Al tho ugh the ful le xt e ntof the c o nd uc ts up port i ng the char ge i s no w i n dis pu te, it suffi ces to say f orthe pu rpos es ofthi s ap pealthatGoodw i n conce des that he di d not co ntestthe charg e. Goodw i n re ceived 1N o. 12

- 2921 3

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 v. U n i te d S tat es , 54 4 U. S. 13 , 16 ( 20 05 ) ( hol di ng thata s en t e n c i n g c o u r tc a n n o tl o o k t o p o l i c e r e p o r t s t o d e t e r mi ne w he the r a g u ilty p lea to an earlier o ffe nse is classifi ab le as a v iolen t felon y in d e t e rm inin g w he the r certa in p en alty p ro v isio n s a p p ly d u ri n g th e se n te n ci n g h ea ri n g for a l a te r o ffen se ). a no ncustodi alse ntence ofthr ee m onths’ co m m unity con trol (a Flori d a p rogram un d er w hich offen d ers are g eo g r aph i ca l l y c o ns tr aine d) a nd thr ee y ea r s’ pr o ba ti o n. Unb ekn ow nstt o Go o dwi n a t th e ti m e, thi s l i g hts en te nc e was o nl y the b eg i nningo fhi s se l f

- i nfl i ct ed tr o ubles. I n D ecem ber 2006 , he w as con victed of fai lure to re gist er as a sex o ffender i n Dougl as County ( I l l i noi s) Cir cui t Cour t. On A ugu st 2 7, 2007, Goodw i n re gi ste re d as a s ex o ffender i n I l l i noi s, l i sting as h i s r esi dence a hom el ess shel teri n Cham pai gn. S taffat thi s s hel ter did n ot obs er ve Goodw i n ther e a fterS eptem ber17
. B y Oc tober 2, Good w in had m oved to Fl orida, w he re he r egi ste re d as a se x offender on that date
. H e was noti fi ed by Fl or i da author i ti es that he was re quir ed t o r e - r e g i s t e ri n Ap r i l20 0 8 , b u tf a i l e d t o d o s o . He w as ar re ste d i n Fl or i da i n J uly20 08 f orthi s f ai l ure to re gi ste r. W hi l e in sta te custody, he r egi ste re d as a se x offender and w as noti fi ed that he was req u ire d to re re gi ste r i n Octobe r 2008
. G o o d win mo v e d fr o m F l o r i d a t o I l l i n o i s i n S e p t e mber20 08. H avi ng l eft the st ate

— or fled , ac c o r d in g t o h is ex-w if e

— Goodw i n f ai l ed to appear at an Octobe r 15 cour t d at e stem m i ng fro m hi s e ar l i erf ai l ure to re gi ste r4 N o. 12

- 2921 i n Fl or i da. H e a l so f ailed to r e- re gi ste r that m onth i n Fl or i da, as re quir ed und er Fl or i da l aw . H e fur ther f ai l ed to r eg i st eri n I l l i no i s f o l l o wi nghi s m o ve , r unning afo ulb o tho fI l l i no i s’ s se x- o ffend er- r eg i st r y l aw a nd ofS OR N A , wh i ch m ake s ita fel ony f ora sex o ffender knowingl y t o f ai lto r egi ste r f ollow i ng an i nter sta te m ove, 18 U
. S. C
. § 2250(a). Goodw i n w as ar re ste d i n Verm i l i on County, I l l i noi s, on J une 29, 20 11. On J uly13 , a federa lgr and j ury re turned an i nd i c tm ent a l l eging tha t he w as re quir ed to r eg i st erunde rS ORN A b ase d o n h i s 19 94 c o nv i ct i o n, but know i ngl y fai l ed to do s o w hen he t ra vel ed fro m Flori d a to I ll inois in Sep tem be r 2008 an d therea fter. Goodw i n ple aded gui l ty on Ap ri l25 , 20 12. Fol l owing Goodw i n’s gui l ty ple a, a proba ti on o ffi cer prepar ed hi s Pr ese ntenci ng Repor t. The probati on o ffi cer cl ass i fi ed Goodw i n’s o ffense l eve las 10 a n d his cr i m i nal hi sto rycat eg or y as V, l eadi ng to a Gu i del i nes r ange of 21 to 27 m onths’ im p ri sonm ent. The o ffi certhen sta ted that the Gui del i nes a dvis ed a p er i od ofsuperv i sed re l e a s e o ffi v e y e a r s t o l i fe , c i t i ngU. S
. S
. G. § 5 D1
. 2 ( b ) ( 2) & ( c )
. T h e P r e s e n t e n c i n gR e po r t d i d n o ti n c l u d e r e c o mm endati ons re gar ding ei therany m andator y o r special con d iti ons rela t ed to the recom m en d ed period of su p ervi sed r el eas e. On A ugust 1 6, the dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced Goodw i n to 27 m ont hs ’ i m p rison m e n t, to be fol low ed by a l ife term o fs u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . In r e a c h i n gth i s s e n t e n c e , the di s t r i c tc o ur tc o ns i de r e d the f a c t o r s l i s t ed i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3553 (a). Spec if ic all y, th e cou rt cons idered Go od w in’sN o. 12

- 2921 5 cri m i nalhi sto ry, part i cul ar l y hi s r epeate d disr ega rd o f se x -offe n d er -re gis tr at ion law s, b u t a lso n ot ed t h a t h is diffi cul t chil d h oo d and hi sto ryo fdrug use a nd m ental heal th i ssues pro vi ded so m e m i ti gat i on. The dist rict c ou rt also im p osed ten sp ecial cond iti ons on G ood w in’s p er iod of su p e r v i se d rele as e. T h e fo llow in g fou r c on d itio n s a re atiss u e in th is a p p ea l: Cond i ti on 4: You shal lpa rt icip at e w i th the U
. S. Pro

bati on Offi ce’ s Com pu terand I nter net M o ni to r i ngPr o g r am . . . . Y ou shal li nsta l lfi l ter i ng so ftw ar e o n any com pu ter you posse ss oruse, wh i ch w illm oni tor and bl ockacc ess to se xuall y o ri ented w ebsi te[ s]
. You shal l al l ow the probati on o ffi c e r u n a n n o u n c e d a c c e s s t o a n y c o mpu teryo u posse ss oru se to ver i fy that th e filte rin g s of t w a r e is fu n c tio n al . .
. . You s h allsubm i t t o the s ear ch of yourper son, auto m obi l e, an d proper ty und eryo ur co ntrol by the pr obat i on offi cer . You shal lal l ow the probati on offi certo co nd uc tp e r i o di c, unannounced e xa mi na t i o ns o fy o urc o mput e re qu i pm ent . . . wh i ch m ay incl ud e r etr i eval an d c o py ingo fa ll da tafr o m y o ur dev i ce . . . o rr emov alo fs uche qui pm en t for th e pu rp ose of cond uc ting a m ore th o r o ugh ins pec ti o n. C ond iti on 5: Y ou sh all ha ve no c o n t a c t w ith an y pe rso n un derthe ag e o f1 8 ex ce pt i n the6 N o. 12

- 2921 p r e s e n c e o f a re sp on sib le a d u lt w h o is awar e o fthe na tu re o fy o urb ac k g r o und and curr ent o ffense, a n d w ho has bee n ap p roved by the prob ation offi cer. Cond i ti on 6: You shal lnei therposs ess norhave und er

yourco ntro lany m ate ri al, l egalo r i l l ega l, that co ntai ns nudityo r that depict s o r al l ud es to sexualact i vi ty or dep ict s s ex u ally aro u sin g m at er ial . .
. . Con di ti o n 7: Yo u sh all not receive or trans m it an y

se xua l l y a r o us i ngmate r i al, i nc l udi ng chi l d pornog rap hy, vi a the i nter net, nor vi si t an y web si te . . . c o nt aini nga ny se xua l l y a r o us i ngmateri al, i nc l udi ng chi l d pornog ra phy. The dis tr i ct cou rt d i d not di scuss i ts re aso ns f or im posi ng the se speci alco nd i ti ons. I m m edi ate l y a fter sta ti ng t h e c ondit i ons, the cour t a ske d G oo dw i n a questi on c oncerni ng an unrel ate d topi c. N ei therparty obj ecte d to the i m posi ti on o fthes e co nd i ti ons.
B
. The Sex O

ff enderRegist rati on and Notif icati on A ct S i nc e o ne o fthe i ss ue s i n thi s appe alc o nc erns the con s t i t ut i o na l i t y o fS OR NA, we p r o v i de a b r i e fo v e r v i ew of th e re lev an t s e c t i on s o f th is s ta tu te an d ap p lica b le re gul ati ons. Congr ess enac ted S OR N A i n 2006 a s par t o f a l ar g erb i l l, the Adam W al shChi l d P rot ec ti o n a nd SafetyA ct ( “the A d am W alsh A ct”) , Pub. L. N o. 10 9- 248, 1 2 0 S t a t . 5 8 7, a i med a te s t ab l i s hingnat i o na ls t a nd a r dsN o. 12

- 2921 7 f orse x-o ffender re gi str ati on pro gr am s. 42 U
. S. C. §§ 1691 1- 1692 9. In the i ntro du cto ryse cti on t o the l aw , C on gr ess st at ed th at SO R N A ’ s p u rp os e is “t o p ro te c t t h e p u b lic fr o m s ex o ffen der s . . . a nd r es po n[ d] to th e vi ci o us at ta c ks by vi ol ent pr edator s. ” 4 2 U.S
. C. § 1 6901
. W i th thi s purpose i n m i nd , Congr ess “e stabl i sh[ ed] a co m prehe n siv e nat i onalsy ste m f orthe re gi str ati on o ftho se offenders. ” Id. Offenders m ust update thei r re gi str ati on i n this ne w re g i st r at i o n s y st em wi th i n thr ee da y s o fa ny change i n nam e, r esi dence, em plo yer, o r student st atus. 42 U
. S. C. § 1 6913 ( c) . SO R N A a l so m ake s i t a fel ony f or a c o v e r e d o ffe n d e rt o t r a v e li n i n t e r s t a t e o rf o r e i g n c o mm er ce a nd kno w i ngl y f ai lto r egi ste r orupd ate hi s o r he r regi stration. 18 U
. S. C
. § 2250(a). SORN A gr ants the Attorney Gene ra lthe “author i ty to speci fy the appli cabi l i ty ofthe [ re gi str atio n ] r equi re m ents . . . to se x offen d ers co nvi cted be f or e the enac tm en t o f [SO R N A ].” 42 U .S.C . § 16 91 3(d ). B ey on d th is ge n er al g ra n t o f au th or ity , th e s ta tu te co n ta in s n o p ro visi on that pr ovi des gui dance to t he A tto rneyGenera l regard ing w ha t factors to con side r i n m a k ing this d eterm i na ti o n. I n Feb ru ar y 2 007, the A tto rneyGenera li ssued an i nter i m r egul ati on, pursuant to his author i ty und er § 1 6913 ( d), wh i ch appli ed SORN A ’ s r egi str ati on r equi re m en ts t o al lpre - enactm ent s ex o ffenders. 72 F. R. 88 94, 8897
. The A tto rneyGeneral m ade thi s r egul ati on per m anent in J uly20 07. 73 F. R. 38 063.8 N o. 12

- 2921 II. A NA LYSIS Goo dwi n p re se nt s th r ee i ss ue s o n a ppea l
. F i r st, he r e ne ws hi s c o ns ti tuti onal o bj ecti on t o 42 U
. S. C. § 1 6 9 1 3 ( d)

— w hi ch, aga i n, gr ants the A tto rney Gener al the di scr eti on t o pros ecute f orf ai l ure to re gi ste r und er S ORN A o ffen der s whos e co nv i ct i o ns pr eda te the ena c tmento fS O R NA

— as an unconsti tuti onaldel ega ti on o fl e g i s l a t i v e a utho r i ty t o the e xe c ut i v e b r a nc h. S e c o nd , he a r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s m i sc al cu l at i o n o fthe advi sory Gui del i nes r ange f orhi s t er m of supervi sed re l eas e co nsti tutes pl ai n er ro r. Thi rd, he c l ai m s that Cond i ti ons 4 thro ugh 7 a re notr eas on ab ly re l ate d to hi s f ai l ure-t o- re gi ste r offense, i nvol ve a g re ate r depri vati on o fl iber ty than i s nec es sar y, and vi ol ate the Fi rs t Am en dm en t. W e addr es s th es e ar g um en ts i n tur n.
A
. Th eC o n s t i t u t i o n a l i tyo f S OR NA Go o d wi n cl a i ms th a tth e p r o v i s i o n o fS O R NA und erwh i ch he was co nvi cted vi ol ate s no nd el ega ti on pri nci ple s a nd ther ef or e i s unconst i tuti onal. W e r evi ew th e co nsti tuti onal i ty ofa federa lst atute deno vo . U nited St at e s v. Haus m ann , 345 F.3d 95 2, 95 8 ( 7 t h C i r . 200 3). A del ega ti on i s “co nsti tuti onal l y suffi ci ent i f C ongres s c lea rly d elin ea te s [1 ] t h e g en er al p olic y, [2] t h e p u b lic age ncy which i s t o apply i t, and [3] th e bo und ar i es of thi s del ega ted autho ri ty. ” Am. Powe r & L igh t Co. v. S EC, 329 U
. S. 90, 105 (1946 ). H er e, al lthr ee re quir em ents ar e m et. S OR N A di re cts th e Att o r ne y Ge ne r alt o e xe r ci se hi s di sc r et io n in aN o. 12

- 2921 9

m anner consi ste nt with the intel l i gibl e pr i nci ple o f“pro

tect i ng the publi c” fro m se x offenders and establ i shi ng a “co m prehensiv e” re gi str y; the sta tute i denti fi es the Attorney Gener alas the offi ci alto e xerci se thi s del egat ed auth ori ty; and the A tto rneyGenera l ’ s a uthor i ty i s nar ro w l y r es tr i cted t o deter m i ni ng the appli cabi l i ty o fS ORN A to o ffen der s whos e cr i m es pr eda te the sta tute’ s e nactm ent. Fi rs t, S OR N A p rovi des an intel l i gibl e pr i nci ple to g u i d e th e At t o r n e y Ge n e r a l ’ s e x e r c i s e o f d e l e g a te d a uthor i ty. W hen Congre ss confer s pol i cym ak ing a uthor i ty on e xecuti ve bra nch offi ci al s, i t m ust “l ay dow n by l egi sl ati ve act an i ntel l i gibl e pr i nci ple to wh i ch th e per son or body a uthor i zed to [ act] i s di re cted t o conf or m . ” Whi t m an v. Am
. Tr uc ki ng Ass ’ ns , 53 1 U.S
. 45 7, 47 2 ( 2001 ) ( quotati on m ar ks and ci tat i on o m i tte d). The princi ple se t for th in S OR N A to gui de the A tto rneyGenera l ’ s di scr eti on quali fi es as i ntel l i gibl e. S OR N A co ntai ns a c lear s tat em ent o fCongr ess ’ s purpose i n enact i ng the st atute : I n ord er to protec t the pu bli c from sex of fend ers a n d o ffe n d e r s a g a i n s tc h i l d r e n a n d [ t o ] r e s p o n[ d] to the v i ci ous a tta cks by vi ol ent pr edator s a gainst the v i cti m s li sted bel ow, Congre ss . . . es tabl i shes a co m prehensi ve nati onalsy ste m f orthe re gi str ati on o ftho se offenders. 42 U
. S. C. § 1 6901
. T his se ct i o n pr o vi des s uffi ci en t g ui dan ce t o the A tt or n ey Generalf ortwo r eas ons: ( i ) § 1690 1 co nveys to the A tto rney General that the del ega ted au th ori ty sh o ul d b e ex er ci se d wi ththe goa lo f“ pr o te ct [ i ng ] the10 N o. 12

- 2921 pu bl i c” fro m a specifi c cl ass o fcr i m i nal s; and ( i i ) § 1690 1 n ot ifies th e A tt or n ey G en er al th at h e o r sh e s h ou ld act in a m an n e r t h a t furth ers C ong ress’s obj ective of a “c om p re h en siv e” reg ist ra tio n sy st em . See U nited Sta tes v. A m bert, 56 1 F
. 3d 12 02 , 12 14 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 09 ) ( “Bys et ting f o r ththe b ro ad po l i cyg o alo fpr o te ct i ngthe pub l i c an d see ki n g a ‘ com prehensi ve’ nati onalr egi str y, Congr ess ha s su ggeste d that the A ttorn ey G en eral shou ld req uire pre- 2006 sexual offenders to re gi ste r to the e xtent that he d et er m i nes i t would co ntribute t o the pr ote cti on o f the publ i c and the com p re h en si venes s o fa nati onalse x offender re gi str y. ”)
. The gui dance that SORN A p ro vi des regard ing p rotectin g t h e pu bli c from sp ecifi ed offen d ers c on st itu te s a n int ellig ible p rin c ip le. Cf. Yakus v. U nited Sta tes , 32 1 U.S
. 41 4, 42 0 ( 1944 ) (d ire c ti ve that any r egul ati on be “g ener al l y f ai r and equit abl e” quali fi es as an in te lligib le p r i n c ip le); Na t’l B roa d. C o . v. U nited Sta tes , 319 U
. S. 190, 2 1 6 -1 7 (1943) ( p rinciple tha t regulators act “in th e pu bli c interest ” qu ali fi es). S ec o nd, S ORN A spe ci fi es the Att o r ne y G ene r ala s th e executi ve bra nch of f i ci al desi gnate d to exerci se d elegated aut hority. T hu s, th e non d elegation d oc t rine’s r equi r ementtha t Con g r es s “c l ea r l y d eli neat e[ ]
. . . the pu bl i c ag ency w hi ch i s t o apply [ the pol i cy] , ” A m. P o w er & Lig ht C o ., 32 9 U.S
. at10 5, i s m et. Thir d, SORN A se ts c lea r boundari es on the A tto rney G en eral’s ex ercise of d isc r e t ion i n virtu all y every re spect, w i th the excepti on of the provi si on at iss u e in thi s ca se. The st atute co ntai ns detai l ed dir ecti ves re gar ding vi rtual l y e ver y a spect ofthe est abl i sh m en t o fN o. 12

- 2921 11 the nat i onalr egi str y. Fo r i nstance , Congr ess deter m ined w hi ch cri m es re quir e re gi str ati on, 42 U
. S. C. § 1 6911 , th e l o ca ti o ns , de adl i ne s, a nd metho ds f o rr eg i st r at i o n, 42 U
. S. C. § 1 6913 ( a)

- ( c) , and th e s peci fi c penal ti es f or vi o l a t i o ns , 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 5 0 ( a )
. Ind e e d, the de t e rm i nati o n o fwhethe rthe s ta tu te a ppl i es t o pr e- en ac tment offenders i s o ne o fthe few ar eas in wh i ch the A tto rney G en er al e x er c ise s d isc re tio n . See A m bert, 56 1 F
. 3d at 1214 ( “Congr ess m ade vi rtual l y e ver y l egi sl ati ve deter m i nati on in enact i ng S OR N A , wh i ch has the e ffect ofco nstr i cti ng t h e Attor ney Gener al ’ s di scr eti on t o a na rrow and de fi ne d category.”). W e ar r i ve d a t th i s sa m e co nc l us i o n in U nited S t a t es v . Dix on , a s i mi l a rc o n s t i tu t i o n a lc h a l l e n g e t o S O R NA on non d elegation grou nd s. 551 F. 3d 578, 583-84 ( 7 t h C ir. 2008 ) rev’d on oth er gro un ds a nd rem a nd ed s u b n o m . Ca rr v. U nited Sta tes , 13 0 S
. Ct. 22 29 ( 2010 )
. Thi s co urt w i l lnot r e- ex ami ne a r ec en t dec i si o n un l es s pr es en te d wi tha com pel l i ng r eas on fordoi ng so , e. g. , a l egi sl ati ve or re gul ato rychange , a j ud i ci aldeci si on concer ni ng a re l ate d oranal ogo us i ssue, or changes i n the soc i alo r ec on om ic c on te x t s u rro u n d in g th e d ec is i o n . See U nited St at e s v. D i cke rson , 705 F.3d 683 , 689 (7th C ir. 2013). G o o d w i n d oe s n otp re se n t a n y a rg u m en t th at co u ld gener ousl y b e desc ribed as re sponding to new o r c h a n g e d c o n d i t i o n s . I ns t e a d , h e a r g u e s th a tth e S u p r e me C ou rt’s reversal of D ixon o n gr o unds ha vingno th i ng to do wi thno nde l eg at i o n “ sh o ul d c al l into que st i o n” th e con tinu ed vali d ity of D ixon as pr ec ed en t co ncer ni ng the co nsti tuti onal i ty ofS OR N A o n nondel ega tio n gro u n d s. W e t h in k t h at th e o p p os ite co n c lu sio n is12 N o. 12

- 2921

m or e s ensibl e. S i nce the Ca rrC ourtexpre ssl y decl ined to c o m m en t on ourfi ndi ngi n D ixon that SORN A does not vi ol ate the Consti tuti on , D ixon re m ai ns go od l aw on th is iss u e. See C a rr, 1 30 S
. Ct
. a t 2242 n. 2 ( no ting that SORN A del ega tes autho ri ty to the Attorney General, and expres sl y s tat ed th at the Court “does not ad d re ss th e v alid ity of th is re gu lat ion ”). T h u s, D ixon ’s c on tin u ed ap p lica b ili t y p re se n ts an ad d itio n al im p ed ime n tt o G o o d win ’ s n o n d e l e g a t i o n c l a i m.
B
. The Term of Su perv iso ry R elease I n ch all en ging th e li fetim e restriction of his su p ervi sed r el eas e, Goodw i n cal l s o ur a tte nti on t o the s ecti on ofthe P re sentence Repor t ( PSR) co ncer ni ng super vi sed re l eas e. Thi s s ect ion stat es that the Gui del i nes a dvis e a su p ervisory period of fi ve years to li fe for Good w in’s o ffe ns e, ci t i ngt wo Gu i de l i ne s p r o v i s i o ns , U. S
. S
. G. § 5 D1
. 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) a nd ( c ) , f o r thi s pr o po s i t i o n. Based on th is sup p osed au t h o r ity, the rep ort recom m en d s a l ife t er m o fs up e r v i s i o n. Go o dwi n a r g ue s tha tU. S
. S
. G. § 5D1
. 2(b) ( 2) is i na ppl i cabl e to hi s o ffen se , tha t th e r e p o r te r r o n e o u s l y r e l i e d o n th i s G u i d e l i n e i n r e c o mm en d ing a l i fe te r m o fs upe r vi se d r el ea se , a nd tha t th e d istri ct cou rt’s sente nc ing h im to a l ife term of su p ervis ed rele as e u n d er th e in c or re c t a ss u m p tio n th at th is sente n c e w as w i thi n the advi sory Gui del i nes c onst i tutes pla i n er ro r. The go vernm ent a gr ees . The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not a nnounce the advi sory Gui deli ne ra nge fro m w hi ch i t chose the l i feti m e ter m , b u t it d id indic ate i n the w ri tte n j ud gm ent that the PSR wasN o. 12

- 2921 13 accepte d “w i thout change .” So we assum e that the fi ve ye ar s t o life ra n ge ad vis ed in t h e P SR p lay ed a r o le in th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si o n. Good w i n did noto bj ect bel ow to e i therthe dist ri ct cour t’ s r ecei pt ofa re portco ntai ni ng t h is a l l ege d err or or t o th e co ur t’ s l at er i m po si ti o n o f a l i fe te r m o f su p ervi sed r el ease fol l owing thi s incor re ct c al cul ati on. S i nce w e c an n otth in k of a n y r e as on w h y G oo d w inw ou ld del iber ate l y r em ai n si l ent c oncerni ng a m i scal cul ati on th at led to th e im p ositi on of th e longest p ossible term ofsuperv i sed r el eas e, we consi der hi s obj ecti on o n ap p ea l to b e fo rfe ite d , no t w aiv ed
. Se eU ni t e d S t a te s v. Ja im es-Jaim es , 406 F.3d 845 , 849 (7t h C ir
. 2005) (“Forfei tu r e o cc ur s be ca us e o fnegl ec t whi l e wai ve rha ppen s i nt en ti o na l l y . ”)
. Acco r di ng l y, we r ev i ew thi s as pec t o fthe d ist ric t c ou rt ’s s en te n c in g d ec isio n fo r p l ain err or . See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ande rs on , 604 F. 3d 997, 1001 ( 7th Cir. 2010). Underthe pl ain- er r o rs ta nda r d, w e wi l lr ev er se the d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s s e n t e n c i n gd e t e r mi n a t i o n “o n l y wh e n we fi nd: ( 1) a n e r r o ro rde fec t ( 2) tha t i s cl ea ro ro bv i o us ( 3) a ffec tingthe de fen dan t’ s su bs tan tia lr i g ht s ( 4) a nd se riou sly im p u gn in g th e fa irn es s, i n t eg rit y, or p u b lic re pu tat i on o fj ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. ” Id. A c c or d i n g t o G oo d w in, th e P SR co n ta in s t w o c los ely re lat ed err or s; t h e r e p or t c ite s t h e a lleg ed ly in ap p lica b le U. S
. S
. G. § 5D1. 2 ( b ) ( 2 ) i n i t s de t e r mi na t i o n o fthe a dvi s o r y Gu i de l i ne s r a ng e f o rs up e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , a nd , b a s e d in p ar t o n th is c ita tio n, th e re p or t a lleg ed ly m isc alcul at es the a dvi so r y Gui del i ne s r an g e. Thi s Gui del i ne provi des f ora m axi m um l i fe t er m o fsup er vi sed r el eas e14 N o. 12

- 2921 f o r“ a se x o ffen se . ” U. S
. S. G. § 5 D1. 2(b) ( 2)
. Thu s, the appli cabi l i ty oft hi s pro vi si on hi nges on wh ether Goodw i n’s f ai l ure to regi ste r und er18 U
. S. C. § 2 250 quali fi es as a s ex o ffense. A s no ted, the gov er nm ent, in c onc ed ing error, i nd icates th at it shares G ood w in’s unde r st an di ngofthi s Gui del i ne . W e wer e i ni ti al l y c o nce r ne d tha t th e g o ve r nm en t’ s co nc es si o n o ferror m i g ht have been i ncor re ct, but a cl ose r ex am i nati on o f thi s probl em r eve al s that nei therthe Gu i del i ne nor i ts com m entar y pr ovi de a b asi s forco nclu d in g that the a dvis or y Gui del i nes r ange f orGoodw in ’s o ffense e x t e n d s t o a l i fe t e r m. To deter m i ne wh etherf ai l ure t o re gi ste r shoul d be cl assi fi ed as a s ex o ffense, we fi rs t l oo k t o A pp l i cati on N ote 1 to U
. S. S. G. § 5 D1. 2. Thi s n ot e d efi nes a se x offense as a cr i m e “ perpetr ate d against a m i nor ” under, inte r alia , c h ap te r 10 9B of T itle 18 . Th e o n ly offe n se liste d in ch ap ter10 9B i s f ai l ure to re gi ste r, 18 U
. S. C. § 2 250, w hi ch i s Goo dw i n’s o ffense. The phrasi ng o fthi s Ap pli cat ion Note s ugges ts that a fa ilu re to r egi ste r und erS OR N A co uld be co nsi dered an offe n se “p er p et ra te d ag ai n sta m in or ” u n d er ce rt ain c i r c ums t a nc e s . Othe r wi s e , the i nc l us i o n o fc ha pt e r1 0 9B of Titl e 18 in th e A p p li cation N ote w ou ld be su rp lusage
. Bu t how are courts t o de term ine w he th er a g i v e n f ailu re to reg ist er w as p er p et ra te d ag ain sta m ino r ? The Gui d eli ne s an d the i rc o m m en ta r y o fferno ass i sta nce. Perhaps the Note m eans to saythati fthe ori gi nal o ffen se tha t g av e r i se t o the r eg i st r at i o n r equi r ementN o. 12

- 2921 15

Thi s i nt er pre t at i on i s c ons i s t en twith the pr ac t i c e oft wo of 2 our s i s t erc i rc ui t s , whi c h h ave appli ed thi s Guide l i ne

— without ex pl ana t i on, an d i n u np u bl i s he d opi ni ons

— to failu res to reg ister w he re th e or igin al offense w as p erp etra ted ag ain st a m in o r. S ee Un i te d S tat es v. Z ei ders , 44 0 F
. A p p ’ x 69 9 (11th C ir . 20 1 1 ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. Nel so n , 400 F. Ap p’ x 781 ( 4th Cir
. 2 0 1 0 ). T h is p ra ct ic e, h o w ev er , is h a r d ly u n iv er sa l. S ee Un i te d S tat es v. Herbert, 4 2 8 F
. A p p ’ x 37 ( 2d C ir. 20 11 ) (find ing tha t a defe nd ant’ s f ail ure t o regi st er was not a s ex offense und er U
. S. S. G
. § 5D 1. 2( b)( 2) ; the defe nd ant’ s origi nal crim e w as com m it ted agains t tw o m inors , acc ording to Ap pell ee Br. , 2010 W L 4 8 1 5 0 3 2 a t *3 ); se e a lso U n ite d S ta te s v . M a x w ell , 4 8 3 F . A p p ’x 2 3 3 , 23 6 n . 1 ( 6 th C i r . 2 0 1 2 ) ( n o t i n g th a t“ [ t ] h e r e i s s o me b asis” for th e d efend an t’ s arg u m en t “tha t his f ailu re to up date his sex offender regi st rat ion does notcons ti tute a ‘ se x offen s e’ as defi ne d b y [ U. S. S. G. § 5D1. 2] , ” butfi ndi ng th is a rg u m en t to b e w a iv ed ). wer e per pet r at ed ag ainst a m i no r, the n the s ubs eque nt offe n se off ai l ure to re gi ste r shoul d be co nsi dered a sex offense. A l th ou gh such a r ule ar guabl y would be

2 se ns ibl e, i t ca nno t be de r i ve d fr o m the l an g ua g e o fthe Gui del i ne an d i t woul d b e pur ely a j udi ci alc r ea ti o n. The A pp l i cati on N ote does not provi de a cl ear s tat em en t th atthe S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n h ad su cha pu r po s e i n mi nd
. I t s eem s t o u s that the a pp l i cati on o fthe ter m “per petr ate d against a m i nor ” t o any f ai l ure to regi ste r stretc he s this te r m p ast its breaking p oint. I n G ood w in’s case , ther e was no speci fi c vi cti m o fh i s f ai l ure to r eg i st er, a nd the v i ct i m o fthe s ex o ffen se f o rwhi chhe was c o nv i ct ed was nine y ea r s o l d a t th e ti m e o fthe16 N o. 12

- 2921 offense, and, ther ef or e, had re ached t he ag e o fm aj or i ty b y 2 0 0 8 wh e n Go o dwi n f a i l e d t o r e g i s t e ri n I l l i noi s. T h u s , i ts e e ms i n c o r r e c tt o c l a i m th a tG o o d win c o mm itt ed h is fa ilu re to reg ist er “a ga in sta m in or .” I ns t e a d o fi g no r i ng o rp l a c i ngc o nd i t i o ns o n the Appli cati on N ote ’ s r efer ence to chapter10 9B ofTi tl e 1 8, w ou ld it be m ore sens ibl e to read the p hra se “p erp etrat e d a g ainst a m inor” out of th e N ote? T his interpreta ti on would pl ace all failu re s to re gis te r w i th in the purvi ew o fU .S
. S. G. § 5 D1. 2, el i m i nati ng the ta sk of determ ining ho w a f ail ure to regi ster cou ld be p erp etrated agains t a m inor. Bu t ignoring the ph rase “p erpetrated ag ai nst a m i nor ” with re spect to chapter10 9B of T itl e 18 seem ingly al so w ou ld req uire us to i gn ore th is ph rase w ith resp ect to all of the oth er st a t u t ory pr o v i s i o ns tha ta r e l i s t e d in the No t e . T he s e i nc l ude o ffen se s f o rwhi chit i s r el at i ve l y e as y t o de te r m i ne w hethera m in orwas vi cti m i zed and ra ti onalto ad vis e har sherpenal ti es to offenses per petra ted ag ai nst m in or s. Se e, e . g. , 18 U .S.C. § 1201 ( ki dn apping)
. Conseq u en tly , rea d in g th e p h ra se “p er p et ra te d ag ain sta m inor ” o ut o fthe N ote would gr eat l y ex pand the appli cati on o fU
. S. S. G . § 5 D 1. 2 t o these o therl i ste d offenses . W e h ave no ind i cati on that the Com m i ssi on intended thi s r e s ul t, a nd a r e u nwi l l i ngt o i nfe ra n i nten tt o do so base d s ole ly on the fl i m sy ar gum ent that the phras e “perpet ra ted ag ai nst a m i nor ” i s s urpl usage . A l though we or dinar i l y g ra nt “co ntro l l i ng weight” t o th e S e n t e n c i n gC o mmi s s i o n ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o fi t s o wn Gu i de l i ne s , a s e xp r e s s e d in the Co mm i s s i o n’ s App l i c a-N o. 12

- 2921 17 tion N otes, w e d o not d efer to i n t e rp retations that are “pl ainl y e r r o ne o us o ri nc o ns i st en t” wi ththe r el ev an t G u id elin e, fed er al la w , or th e C on st itu tio n . See U nited St at e s v. Raupp , 6 77F
. 3d 75 6, 7 59 ( 7th Ci r. 2 012) ( quo ting S t i nso n v . U nited Sta tes , 5 0 8 U. S
. 3 6 , 4 4

- 4 5 ( 1 9 9 3 ) )
. Her e, the i l l ogi c o f the i m pli cati on that r egi str ati on o ffenses ca n b e per pet r at ed ag ains t m i no r s i ndi ca te s th at, t o the extent that the Note purpor ts to i ncl ud e f ai l ures to r e g i s t er as se x offe n se s, th is p or tio n of th e N ot e is pla in l y e rr oneo us as a defini ti on o f“s ex o ffense” f or pu rpos es ofU
. S. S. G. § 5 D1. 2( b) ( 2)
. M or eov er, the N ote i s inconsi ste nt with defini ti ons of“s ex o ffense” el sew h er e in th e U .S . C o d e, see, e.g., 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 3 5 5 9 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( defini ng “Federa lse x offense” byr efer ring to a set o f cr i m es , al l o f whi ch cl ea r l y i nv o l ve ch i l d vi cti m s), and is e q u ally inc on sis te n t w ith th e d efin itio n of “c h ild cri m es and sexualo ffenses ” e l sewhe re i n the Gu i del i nes, see, e.g., A pp l i cati on N ote 4 (A ) to U
. S. S. G. § 5 K 2. 0. Thus, w e do not defe r to thi s Note’ s uncl ear d efin itio n of“s ex o f f e n s e . ” I fth e C o mmi s s i o n d o e s i n f a c tc o n s i d e rs o me f ai l ures to re gist erto be sex o ffenses , i t s houl d say so pla i nl y, and prov i de cour ts w i th gui dan c e as to wh i ch f ai l ur es t o r eg i st erqu ali fy . M o r eo ve r, a s a po r ti o n o fthe A dam W alsh A ct, 18 U
. S. C. § 3 583( k) , m andates that r e g i s t r y v i o l a t i o ns s h o u l d b e e l i g ib l e f o rl i fe t i me t e r ms ofsuperv i sed r el eas e re gar dle ss ofwh ethertheyi nvol ve a m inor victim , the G uid eli ne s shou ld ex p lai n th e circum sta nces und erwh i ch thato utcom e i s withi n ra nge. Since nothi ng ab out Goodw i n’s f ailu re to r egi ste r de mon s t r a t e s tha ti ti s a s e x o ffe nse

— an d since nei ther th e Sent en cing C om m issi on n or the d ist r ict cou rt18 N o. 12

- 2921 provi des a ra ti onal e forthe co n tr ar y pos i ti on

— U. S
. S
. G. § 5D 1. 2( b) ( 2) does notapply
. The PSR’ s ci tat i on t o U. S
. S
. G. § 5 D1
. 2 ( b ) ( 2) a nd mi s c a l c ul a t i o n o fthe a dvis or y G u id elin es ran ge as five ye ar s t o life, ba se d on th is c ita tio n, w er e th er efo re in er ro r. In st ea d , th e p ro p er ly calcu lated ad visory Gu idelines “ran ge” for G o o d w in’s offense appears to actual l y b e a poi nt: fi ve yea rs . To se e wh y, n ot e fi rs t that the Guidel i nes a dvis e a ter m o fsuperv i sed r el eas e o fbetw een o ne and thr ee ye ar s fo r G oo d w in ’s o ffen se . Se e U
. S. S. G. § 5 D1. 2( a) ( 2) (se tt in g th is ra n ge for C las s C felo n i e s); s e eal s o 1 8 U. S
. C. 3559 ( a) ( 3) ( applying the Cl ass C l abelto fe loni es f or w hi ch the m axi m um term o f i m pri sonm ent i s be tw een te n a nd t wenty - fi ve y ea r s) ; 1 8 U. S
. C. § 22 50 ( a) ( m an dat i ng a te n- y ea rmaxi m um t er m o fi m pr i so nm en t f o rf ai l ure to re gi st er as a sex o ffender)
. Thi s a dvis or y Gui del i nes ra nge, how eve r, co nfl i cts w i th the st atuto rym andate that i nd i vi du al s co nvi cted of Goodw i n’s o ffense re ceive a m an d at ory sent en ce of no l ess th an five years ofsuperv i sed r el eas e. 18 U
. S. C. § 3 58 3(k). W here , as here , the statu tory m i ni m um te rm o fsuperv i sed r el eas e i s g re ate r than the to p end ofthe G u id eli nes r ange of § 5 D1
. 2( a ) ( 2 ) , the s t a tut o r y mi ni mum co nt r o l s . U. S
. S
. G. § 5 D 1.2 (c ); cf. Uni t e d S t at e s v . Gi bbs , 5 78 F. 3d 694, 69 5 ( 7th Cir
. 20 09) ( “[ T]he sta tutory m i ni m um te rm o fsuperv i sed release d e fines either the b ottom l im it ofthe ad visory Gu i del i nes r ange orthe enti re r ange ( i fi t co i nci des w ith the to p ofthe Gu i del i nes r ange)
. ”)
. Thus , the e nt ire Gu i del i nes “ ra nge” becom es the sta tutory m i ni m um o f fi ve years

— n otfive ye a r s t o life , as t h e P SR err on eo u sly st a t e s . Be f o r e we mo v e f o r wa r d, tho ugh, we n o t e tha tN o. 12

- 2921 19 thi s co nc l us i o n e v e n l e a v e s U
. S
. S
. G. § 5 D1
. 2 ( c ) u nful fi l l e d, bec au se it ind icates th at th e sup ervised rel ea s e term “s h all b e n otles s t h a n ” t h e s ta tu to rily re q u ire d te rm . I t does not saythati t “ shal lbe equ al to” thatr equi re d m i ni m um te rm , but that i s the r equi re d res ulther e. H av in g s h ow n th at th e d ist ric t c o u r t p lain ly er re d in i ts a do pti o n o fthe PS R’ s er r o ne o us c al cu lat i o n o fthe ad visory Gu idelines ran ge for G ood w in’s term of su p ervi sed r el eas e, we turn t o ex am i ni ng wh etherthi s e rr or affe c te d G oo d w in ’s s u b st an tia l righ ts . See Ande rs on , 604 F. 3d at 1001
. Dis tr i ct c ourt s s houl d tre at the Gui del i nes “ as the starting poi nt and the i ni ti albenchm ar k” inse n te n c in g d et er m in at ion s. G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U
. S. 38 , 49 ( 2007 )
. In additi on, i n re vi ew i ng se ntences w e a pp l y a r e b ut t ab l e p r e s umpt i o n o fr e a s o nab l e ne ss to w ith in -G u id elin es se n te n c es . Se eU nited Stat e s v. M ykyt i uk, 415 F.3d 60 6, 60 8 ( 7 t h C i r . 200 5); se e also Rita v. U nited Sta tes , 551 U
. S. 338, 347 ( 2007 ) ( hol d in g t h at cour ts ofapp ea ls m ay apply such a presum pti on pos tB o o k er )
. Giv en the i m port ant r ol e that the Gu id elines pl ayb o thi n the i m po si ti o n a nd in the r ev i ew o fs en tence s, w e fi nd thatthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a doptio n ofan i ncor re ct Gui del i nes r ange affecte d G oo dw i n’s substa nti alr i ghts. F i na l l y, the pl ain e r r o rhe r e “s er i o us l y a ffec t[ed ] th e f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty, o r pu b l i c r eputati on o fj ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tr ujill o- Cast i l l on , 69 2 F
. 3d 5 7 5 , 57 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 2 )
. H e r e , th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti mposed a life term o fsuperv i sed r el eas e a fterhaving r ecei ved a re portr eco m m ending thi s s entence . A l though20 N o. 12

- 2921 the di str i ct c ourtdi d not s peci fi cal l y c i te the r epor t or the Gui del i nes in expla i ni ng the l ength ofsup er vi sed r el ea se tha t i t i m po se d dur ing Goo dwi n’ s se nt en cing h e a r i n g, i ti s n o s t r e t c h t o i nf e rth a tth e P S R ’ s r e c o mm en ded l i fe te r m o fs upe r vi se d rel ea se i m pac te d the c ou rt ’s i m p os itio n of a life t er m . W e h av e fo u n d in si m i l arci rcum sta nces that such er ro rs i m pact the fund am en ta l fairn es s o f se n te n c in g h ea rin g s. See, e.g., U nited State s v. G arre tt, 528 F.3d 525 , 530 (7t h C ir. 2008) (“[ W ]e h av e n o re a s o n t o b elie ve [th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s] e rro r in the a pp l i cati on of the Gu i del i nes di d not a ffect i ts sel ec ti o n o fthe pa r ti cul ars en te nc e . . . a nd the r es ul ting prej ud i ce t o [ the de fen dant] j usti fi es re m and fo r re sente ncin g.” )
. M or eov er, wh i l e Goo dw i n f ai l ed to no t i c e th e e r r o r i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t, “ s o d i d
. . . th e Assi st an t Uni te d S ta te s Att o r ne y, the pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce r, a nd the dist ri ct c ou rt ju d ge, and .
. . i t would be unj ust t o pla ce the e nti re burden for th ese o ver si ghts on [ hi m ]
. ” Ja im esJa im es , 40 6 F
. 3d at 851. Thus , the se e r r o r s co nc erni ng th e appl i ca ti o n o fthe a dvi so r y Gui del i ne s war r an t re sente nci ng. As S ect i o n I I
. C. , infra , e xpl ains , we al so a r e r emanding wi th i n s t r u c t i o n s th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tr e a s s e s s th e i mposi ti on o fspeci alco nd i ti on s on G oo dw i n’s superv i sed re l e a s e . T hi s r e man d o n the s pe c i a lc o nd i t i o ns p r ovi des an addit i onalr eas on fo r the di str i ct c ourtto r eco nsi der th e l en g tho fGo o dwi n’ s su per vi se d r el ea se . S i nc e th e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati ons re gar ding the l ength of the su p er vi sory per i od and any c ondit i ons i m posed on G oodw i n duri ng thi s per i od m ay i nvol ve i nter re l ate d deci si ons, a r eas ses sm ent o fo ne o fthes e e l em entsN o. 12

- 2921 21

m aypr o vi de ca us e f o rg i vinga s ec ond look t o the enti re superv i sory r egi m e. W e als o note thati n re achi ng the co ncl usi on that er ro rs co ncer ni ng the appli cati on o fU
. S. S. G. § 5 D1. 2( b) ( 2) w ar ra nt r ese ntenci ng, we do not m ean t o i m ply that t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s n o ta u th o r i z e d t o i m p o s e a l i fe t i me ter m o fsuperv i sed re l eas e. Obvi ousl y, 18 U
. S. C. § 3 583( k) cl ear l y a uthor i zes any ter m o fye ar s fro m fi ve to l i fe. Rather, w e ar e sta ti ng that i f on re m and the d ist rict cour t i m poses a supervi sed r el eas e t erm gr eat erthan fi ve yea rs , thi s t er m wil lhave to be expla i ned by s om ethi ng o therthan the c urr entl y avai l abl e fi ve- yea r Gu i del i nes r ange.
C. Spe ci al Condi t i ons F i n a l l y, G o o d win o bj e c t s t o th e di s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s i mpo si ti o n off o urs pec i alc o ndi ti o ns

— l abel ed Cond i ti ons 4, 5, 6, and 7, abo ve

— du rin g hi s per i od ofsuperv i sed re l eas e. The go vernm ent a gr ees thatConditi ons 4, 6, and 7 sho uld be vac ate d, b u t argues that the di str i ct cour t di d not pl ai nl y e rri n i m posi ng Condit i on 5
. A district cou rt m ay im p ose sp ecial con d iti ons of su p ervi sed r el eas e, pro vi ded thatthes e co nd i ti ons m eetthr ee re quir em ents. F irst, post
- re l eas e co nd i ti ons m ust be r easo n ab ly re lat ed to th e p en olo gic al p u rp os es se t fo rt h in 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a)(1) , ( a)(2) (B), (a)( 2)(C), and ( a)(2) (D). Se e 18 U. S
. C. § 3 58 3( d)
. S pec i fi ca l l y, s pec i alc o ndi ti o ns “m us t be reason a bly rel ated to ( 1) the d efend an t’s offense, hi sto ryand char acte ri sti cs; ( 2) the need f orade-22 N o. 12

- 2921 quate dete rr ence; ( 3) the need to pro tectthe publi c fro m furthercr i m es ofthe defe nd ant; and ( 4) the need to provi de the de fen dant w i th tr eat m ent. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. A ngle, 598 F.3d 35 2, 36 0-6 1 (7 th C i r . 201 0); s e eal s o 18 U
. S. C. § 3553 ( a) ( 1)

- ( 2)
. Se cond, speci al condi ti ons c an not i nvol ve a g re ate r depri vati on o fl ib erty than i s r easonab ly necess ar y t o achi eve the goa l s o fdeter re nce, i ncapaci tat i on, and re habi l i tat i on. U nite d States v. Holm , 32 6 F .3 d 8 72 , 876 (7t h C ir. 20 03 ); s e eal s o 1 8 U. S
. C. § 35 83 ( d) ( 2)
. Thi r d, th e co ndi ti o ns m us t be “consi st en t wi tha ny pe r tine nts ta te m en ts i ss ue d b y the S en te nc i ng C om m issi on.” 18 U
. S. C
. § 3583(d )( 3). I n ass ess i ng the appropr i ate ness ofspecia lco nd i ti ons, i t a l so i s use ful to consi der the r ehabi l i tat i ve obj ecti ves th at su p er vis ed r ele as e s er ve s. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 529 U .S. 53 , 59 (2 00 0) (“ Su p er vis ed r e l ea se fu lfi l l s r ehabi l i tat i ve ends, di stin c t from tho se ser ved by i ncarc er ati on .”)
. Pl aci ng “unduly hars h condi ti ons [ on su p ervised rel ease] w ou ld, ins tea d of facil itating an offend er ’ s tr an si ti o n b ac ki nt o the e ve r y dayl i fe o fthe com m unity, be a s i gni fi cant b ar rier to a fullr eentry into s o c i e t y . ” U nit e d S t at e s v. Pe razza-M e r ca do , 55 3 F
. 3d 65, 71 (1st C ir. 2009) (qu otation m arks an d citation om itted ).
1. S tandard o fRevi ew Goo dwi n di d no t o bj e c t t o the i mpo s i t i o n o fthes e con d iti ons . Th e pa rties d is p u te th e effect of this fai lure to o bj ec t on ou r st an dar d o fr ev i ew, wi ththe g o ve r nme n ta r g u i n gth a tp l a i n - e r r o rr e v i e w f o rf o r fe i t e d c l a i msN o. 12

- 2921 23
o u gh t t o a p p ly, s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Te j e da , 4 7 6 F
. 3 d 4 71, 47 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ), an d G oo d w inco u n te rin g th at h is l ack ofnot i ce tha t th e di str i ct c ourtwould i m pose these c on d itio n s a b so lve s h im of th e re sp o n s ibilit y t o ob j ec t in or d er to av oid p lain -er ro r re vie w on ap p ea l. The go vernm ent c l ai m s th at, i n or der t o prese rv e cl ai m ed er ro r on a pp ealunder F edera lRule o fCri m i nal Pro cedure 51, a part y m ust obj ect befo re th e d istri ct cou rt m ake s i ts rul i n g, or, wh er e the par ty did nothave an oppo r t un i t y t o o bj e c tb e f o r e ha nd , o nly i fthe p a rt y ra i sed the i ssue atthe t i m eof th e ru lin g. U nited Sta tes v. Brown , 6 62 F
. 3d 45 7, 4 61 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 011), ce rt . gra nted, judg m ent v a ca ted su b no m . Va n c e v . U nited Sta tes , 13 3 S
. C t. 65 (20 12 ); se e also U nite d States v. B artl et t, 56 7 F. 3d 90 1, 91 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( sta ti ng tha t Rul e 5 1( b) “r equi r es a pr o te sti m m edi at ely a fte rthe r ul ing ifthe l i ti g an t d id notha ve a n o ppo r tu ni tyt o a r g ue the po i nt ear l i er ”)
. A ccor ding to the gov er nm ent, such a n ex post o bj ec ti o n wo ul d n o t be c o ns i der ed anunn ec es sa r y e xc e pt i o n t o a r ul i ng un de r Ru l e 5 1 ( a ) b e c a us e i n or der f o rR ul e 5 1 ( a) to a pp l y, the p a r ty mus th a v e a l r e a dy r a i s e d i t s c l a i m befo re th e ru lin g. S e eBr own , 66 2 F
. 3d at 461 n. 1. I n re sponse, Goodw i n cal l s ou r at tenti on t o our sta tem en t i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cour t l and : “ I fap a r ty do e s n ot ha ve a n o ppo r tu ni tyt o o bj ec t to ar ul i ngo ro r der, the abse nce of an obj ecti on does not l ate r prej ud i ce that pa r t y . ” 6 4 2 F
. 3 d 5 4 5 , 5 4 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( q u o t i n gF e d. R. Cr i m . P
. 51 ( b) )
. In thi s ca se , ne i th erthe PS R no rthe add endu m to i t m enti oned any pote n tial condi ti ons on24 N o. 12

- 2921 Goo dwi n’ s su per vi se d r el ea se . In fa ct, the r e i s no th i ng i n the r e c o r d tha t i nd i c a t e s tha t Go o dwi n c o ul d hav e expected thatthe dis tr i ct c ourtwould i m pose speci al con d iti ons prior to i ts d oing so. G iven t h is l ack of opp ortuni ty, Goodw i n ar gu es that a l ess defer enti alabuse ofdi scr eti on s tandard o u gh t t o apply to our re vi ew o f thi s i ssue. W e need notr eso l ve w hetherpl ai n-e rr orr evi ew ( as Brown a nd B artl et t w oul d sugges t) o r re vi ew f or abu se of discretion (as p er Co u r t l and ) appli es i n thes e ci r cumst an ce s, s i nc e we fi nd tha t th e s p ec i alc o ndi ti o ns mus tb e v a c a t e d u nd e re i the rs t a nd a r d.

2. Co ndi ti o n 4 Cond i ti on 4 deal s m ost l y w i th Goodw i n ’s p hysi cal pr o p erty, r equi r i nghi m t o i ns ta l li nt erne t m o ni to r i ng so ftw ar e o n h is c om p u te rs ; to su b m it t o s e a r c h es of h is perso n, car, co m pu ter, and othe r p ro perty ; and to a llo w h is com p ut er equ ipm en t to be rem oved f or m ore thor ough ex am i nati ons, am ong othe r re quir em ents. W e co nsi der the co m pu ter
- re l ate d ter m s o fthi s co nd iti o n fi r st . W e f ai lt o s ee h ow th ese b r o ad r es tr i ct i o ns ar e re aso nabl y re l ate d t o Goodw i n’s offense, h isto ry, and perso nalchar acteristi cs. The r eco rd does not i ndi ca te tha t a co m put erpl ay ed a ny r o l e i n e i th erthe i nstant offen se f orf ai l ure to re gi ste r orhi s 1 994 convi cti o n f o r an at te m pte d l ewd an d l as ci vi o us ac t in the p re se n c e o f ch ild
. Cf. U ni ted St at e s v. Fre e m an , 31 6 F
. 3d 38 6, 3 92 ( 3d Ci r . 2 00 3) ( va ca tinga c o ndi ti o n b ar r i ng allacces s to the inte rnet as overly broad , w he re thereN o. 12

- 2921 25
was no i ndi ca ti o n tha t th e defen dant ha d use d the i nter net to co ntact chi l dren)
. N ori s there any i nd i cati on i n the re cor d that Goo dw i n h as ev erused a com pu ter to c o m m i t an y c r i m e. Al th o ugh we stop sh o r t o fs ta ting th at su c h res tr ict i o n s c ou ld n ev er be ap p ro p ria te in th es e ci r cumst an ce s, o urs k ept i ci sm l ea ds us t o c o ncl ud e that the d ist rict co urt m ust pro vi de so m e j usti fi cati on forthes e par ti cul arco nd i ti ons. C on d itio n 4 als o re q u ire s t h at G oo d w insu b m it to w ar ra ntl ess se ar ches ofhi s per son and proper ty by his p robation officer, as w ellthe p oten tial seizure

— tem pora ry, pre sum ab ly

— o fhi s co m put ere qui pm en t f orsupplem ental inspecti ons. Giv en the natur e o f G oo d w in ’s co nvi cti ons, we are o nce ag ai n at a l oss to se e ho w thi s br o ad se ar cha nd s ei zu r e au th o r i tyi s co nne ct e d to Good w in’s offense, history, an d pers ona l ch aracte risti cs, or how i t is reason ably nec essary to furth er in g th e d et er r e n c e, p u b lic p ro te c tio n, an d reh ab ili t a tiv e g oa ls a rt icu lat ed in 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 83 (d )(2)
. See U nit ed S ta tes v. M o nteiro , 27 0 F
. 3d 465, 47 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( vacat i ng a sei zure - re l ate d speci alco nd i ti on, bas ed on an i nabi l i ty to “dis cer n fro m thi s r eco rd the r eas on w h y the di str i ct c ourtwas ofthe vi ew thatsuch br oad a utho r i t y t o s e i z e wa s r e qu i r e d t o e ns ur e tha tthe e nd s of r eh abili ta t ion and prote ction of the p ub li c w ere m et . ”)
. Acco r di ng l y, we va ca te thi s co ndi ti o n.
3. Co ndi ti o n 5 Con di ti o n 5 pr o hibi ts Go od w in fr o m ha vinga ny c on ta c t w ith m i n or s, ex c ep t in th e p re se n c e o f an ad u lt26 N o. 12

- 2921 who i s awar e o fGo o dwi n’ s pr i o rs ex o ffen se a nd who h a s b e e n a p p r o v e d b y th e p r o b a t i o n d e p a r t me n t . We ar e s kepti caltha t su c h a s w eepi ng co nd i ti on co uld be r ea so nabl y r el at ed to Goo dwi n’ s o ffen se , hi st ory a nd chara cter i sti cs, part i cul ar l y s i nce there i s no ev i dence i n the r ec o r d o fa ny i nc ide nt s i nv o l vingmin o r s i n the al m o stt wo de ca des s i nc e Goo dwi n’ s 1 994 c o nv i ct i o n. M or eov er, g iven the pote nti al l y s eve re r est ri cti ons on Goodw i n’s day- to- day l i fe that t hi s co nd i ti on i m poses, the di st ric t co urt’ s l ack ofexpl anati on o fwh y i t thi nks thi s co nd i ti on invol ves no gr eat erdepri vati on o fl iber ty than nece ssa ryto achi eve the penol ogi cal go al s s tat ed i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) i s t ro ubl i ng. The go vernm ent r esponds bynot i ng tha t dist rict co ur ts ha ve the d i sc r et i o n t o i m po se s pec i alc o ndi ti o ns bar ring co ntact w ith m i nor s where the i m m edi ate o ffe ns e , a s wi th Go o dwi n’ s f a i l ur e - t o - r e g i s t e ro ffe ns e, does not i nvol ve conta ct with m i nor s. B u t di str i ct c ourt s’ abi l i t y t o i mpo s e n o - c o nt a c tc o nd i t i o ns do e s n o tab s o l ve t h e m of th eir res p on sib ility to ex p lain w h y s u c h co n d iti on s are warra nted i n part i cul arcas es. Fur ther m or e, w hi l e we ag re e that s uch a co nd i ti on m ay be a pp ro pri ate i n cer tain ci rcum sta nces, we cauti on that th ese ci r cumst an ce s are l es s co m m o n tha n the g o ve r nm en t sugge sts . Tel l i ngl y, i n ove r si x pages of disc ussi on o f ca se l aw c o nc erni ngno - co nt ac t pr o vi si o ns , the g o ve r nm en t c ite s o n ly on e c as e f r o m ou r c irc u it: U nited Sta tes v. M usso , 6 43 F
. 3d 56 6 (7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. In M usso , we up he ld th e im p ositi on of a no-con tact cond iti on w he re the defendant’s i m m edi ate offense

— the v i ol ati on o f hi s o r i g i na lt er m s o fs upe r vi se d rel ease f o l l o wi nga c o n-N o. 12

- 2921 27 vi ct i o n fo rpo ss es si o n o f chi l d po r no g r aph y
— w as not a s ex cr im e. Id. at 571. Bu t M usso’ s vi ol ati on of h is o r igin al t er m s o f su p er vis ed rele as e in vo lve d h im h av in g p ro lon ge d co n ta c t w ith a m i n or, so th e re -im p os iti on o fthi s no - conta ct pr ovi si on fol l owing the r evocati on o fM usso’ s s up er vi sed r el eas e ca n be vi ew ed as an ex te ns i o n o fhi s o r i g i na ls en te nc e f o rc r i m es i nv o l ving a chi l d vi cti m . M or eov er, al lo f t h e c ase s fro m o ur s i ste r circuits th at th e g o v e rnm en t cites i nv olve m uc h m ore ser i ous o ffenses than G oo dw i n’s f ai l ure- to- re gi ste r vi ol ati on s tem m i ng fro m a convi cti on foran a tte m pted l ew d and la sci vi ous a ct in the prese nce o fch ild
. See, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. Z o bel , 69 6 F
. 3d 558 ( 6th Ci r. 20 12) ( up hol ding no- conta ct pr ov isio n w here defendant had kn ow in gly co er c ed an d en tic ed m in o r s t o e n ga ge in se x u al a c tiv ity ); U nited Sta tes v. B ee, 16 2 F
. 3d 1232 ( 9th Cir
. 19 98) ( up h oldi ng no- conta ct pr ovi si on wh er e defend an t had sexu all y abu sed a si x-yea r-ol d ). Give n that Goodw i n ’s instant offense does not i nvol ve a c h ild vic tim an d th at h is offe n se h i s t o r y , w h ile tr ou b lin g, d oe s n otrise to th e le ve l of th os e o f f e n d e rs in the c as es tha t th e g o ve r nm en t ci te s, i t i s no t cl ea rwhy the di str i ct c ourti m posed thi s n o-contact condi ti on. Because the di str i ct c ourth as not provi ded any expla nati on o fhow thi s condit i on i s r eas onabl y r el ate d to Goodw i n’s offense and b ackg ro und or to the go als o f pu ni shm ent, i nvol vi ng no gr eat erdepri vati on o fl iber ty th a n i s r e a s o n ab l y n e c e s s a r y t o a c h i e v e th e s e g o a l s, we va ca te the c o ndi ti o n.28 N o. 12

- 2921 4. Co ndi ti o n 6 S i m i l ar l y, the r ec o r d b efo r e us c o nt ains i nsuffi ci en t supp or t forthe i m posi ti on o fConditi on 6 , wh i ch pro

h ibit s G oo d w infrom p os se ss in g m at er ial th at, inter alia , “d ep icts or al lud es to sex ua l activity.” Go od w in’s f a i l u r e t o r e g i s t e ru n d e rS O R NA h a s n o th i n gt o do w i th m ate ri aldepic ti ng o r al l ud i ng to se xual acti vi ty. M o r eo ve r, the r e i s no th i ngi n the reco r d tha t sh eds l i g ht on a hypothe ti calco nnecti on be tw een Good w in’s 19 94 c on v i c t i on or ot h er p as t a c ts an d su c h m at er ial. T h u s, it i s uncl earhow thi s co nd i ti on i s r eas onabl y r el ate d to an y of th e con side rations set forth in 18 U
. S. C
. § 3583(d ). Cf. Pe razza-M e r ca do , 5 5 3 F
. 3 d a t 6 7 ( ho l di ng tha t a di st r i ctc o ur t co m m i tt ed pl ain e r r o rb y i m po sing, wi th o ut expla nati on, a speci al c ondit i on ba nning the pos ses si on o fpo r no g r aph y, wher e th e r ec o r d di d nots ho w a c o nne cti on be twe enthe de fen dan t’ s co nv i ct i o n fo runl awful sex ua l con tact w ith a m inor and porn ograp hic m aterial)
. The i nc lu sio n ofm ate ri althat“a l l ud es to” se xual ac tiv ity w ith inC on d itio n 6’s p u rv ie w is p ar tic u lar ly probl em ati c. Thi s dict at e g oes bey ond a ba n on the posses si on o fpor nogr aphy. I fr ead l i ter al l y, the i nc lu sio n o fthi s te rm c o ul d b l o ckGo o dwi n fr o m po ss es sing m uch ofthe W est er n l i ter ar y c anon

— ora rguabl y e ven fr o m po s s e s s i nga s l i p c o pyo fthi s o pini o n. Suc h a de pri vati on o fl iber ty cer tainl y would be greaterthan is r eason ably nec essari ly to ach ieve the goals of sup ervi sed r el eas e. Thi s v ague t er m ther ef or e pr ovi des an a d d i tio n al re as on for v ac at ion of C on d itio n 6. See M ont e iro , 27 0 F
. 3d at4 73 ( va ca tinga “ va g ue a ndN o. 12

- 2921 29 overbroa d ” sp ecial cond iti on to en able the d istrict cou rt “to craft m ore prec isel y” th e con d iti on).
5. Co ndi ti o n 7 C ond iti on 7 p la ces con ten t restrictions on G ood w in’s use o fthe i nter net. The por ti on o fthi s co nd i ti on re gar ding the use o fthe i nter n et t o send , r ecei ve, o r vi ew chi l d pornog ra phy see m s j u stifi abl e, gi ven Goo dwi n’ s 19 94 c o nv i ct i o n fo ra n a tt empte d l ewd a nd l asci vi ous a ct in the prese nce o fc h il d. ( I t i s a l so re d u n d an t, sin c e a n ot h er se c tio n of t h e j u d gm en t in th is c as e d ire c ts th at G oo d w i n “ sh all n otco m m it an oth er federal, state , o r l ocal crim e” w hile on sup ervi se d r el ea se , a sta nda r d pr o vi si o n. ) S ti l l, the ne xus between Go od w in ’s hist or y a nd thi s s ecti on o f Con d iti o n 7do es no t ab so l ve the di st r i ctc o ur t o fthe re sponsibi l i ty to provi de an expl anati on foral lspeci al c o nd i t i o ns i mpo s e d. T h e s ec ti o n s o f C on d itio n 7 th at p ro h ibitG oo d w in fro m r ecei vi ng o r sendi ng anyse xually a ro usi ng m ate ria l that i s o ther w i se l ega l

— e. g. , depic ti ons ofadult s

— via th e i nt erne t o rf ro m v i si ting“ an y web si te , i nc l udi ng c h at roo m s o r b u llet inbo ar d s c on ta in in g a n y s ex u ally ar ou sin g m a t e r i al” giv e u s g re at er p au se . Th es e p ro h ibiti ons can be co nsi dered inter net-sp ec i fi c ve rs i ons of Cond i ti on 6’ s prohibi ti on on the posse ssi on of m ate ri al that “co ntai ns nudity o r . . . depic ts oral l ud es to sexual acti vi ty ordepic ts sexual l y a ro usi n g m ate ri al
. ” Thus, th i s p o r t i o n o fC o n d i t i o n 7s u ffe r s fr o m th e s a me o ve rbr ea dtha nd v ague ne ss c o nc erns a s w e n ote d c o n-30 N o. 12

- 2921
c er n in g C on d itio n 6. W e va c at e C on d itio n 7 for sim il arr eas ons. Goodw i n ar gues that hi s depri vati on o fexpre ssi ve mat e r i a lu nd e rCo nd i t i o ns 6 & 7v i o l a t e s h i s F i r s tAmen dmen tr i g ht s . S i nc e we v a c a t e the s e c o nd i t i o ns o n o ther g roun ds, we ne ed no t r ea chthi s co ns ti tu ti o na lque st i o n. Se eAs hwande rv. Te nn. Val l ey Auth. , 29 7 U
. S. 28 8, 34 1 (19836) (Bran d eis, J
. , conc urring).
6. Othe rCo ndi ti o ns Goodw i n’s o bj ecti ons to the s peci alcond i ti ons that th e d ist ric t c ou rtim p os ed f oc u s e x c lu siv ely on C on d itio n s 4 -7. W e w on d er w h y h e h as n otob j ec te d to C on d itio n s 8 an d 1 0 a s w ell. T h es e t w o c on d itio n s re q u ire h im to parti ci pate ( at hi s o w n expe n se ) in s ex o ffender tr eat
m ent a nd m entalheal th co unsel i ng, r espect i vel y, “a s deem ed necess ar y by the proba ti on offi cer . ” A s w i th the o therspeci alco nd itio ns, the dist ri ct c ourti m posed th es e co ndi ti o ns wi th o ute xpl an at i o n. W e no te on ce a gain that each s peci alco nd i ti on i m posed m us t be t ai l or ed to Goodw i n and his needs, se e A ngle, 59 8 F
. 3d at 360

- 61, and i nvol ve no g re ate r depri vati on o fl iber ty than i s r eas onably n eces sar y t o achi eve the goa l s o fdeter re nce, pro tect i on o fthe pu bl i c, an d reh ab ilita tio n, se e Holm , 326 F .3d at 876
. Giv en that G ood w in’s instan t offen se is for a fai lure to re gister, th e pen o l o g i ca lpur po se o fthe se t r ea tmenta nd c o unseli ng program s is far from clear.N o. 12

- 2921 31 Cou r ts o fa ppea l s o r di na r i l y abs ta i n fr o m c o ns i der i ng i ssues sua s ponte
. See Wo o d v. M ily a rd, 13 2 S
. Ct. 18 26, 18 34 ( 20 12 )
. None th el ess, “ [ w]h eni n a c r i m i na la ppea lthe cour t o fappeal s no ti ces a pl ai n er ro r, it c an r eve rs e e ven ifthe a ppel l an t ha d no t dr awn the e r r o rt o the c o urt’s att enti on. ” U nite d State s v. G utie rrez-Ceja , 71 1 F
. 3d 780, 78 4 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 3)
. Her e, we ar e unabl e to di sc ern a ny c o nnecti on be tw een Goo dw i n’s o ffense and the purpose s th ats ex o ffen dert r ea tmenta nd ment alhe al thc o unseli ng typ ic all y serve. Th us , Con d iti ons 8 and 10 requ ire additio na lc o ns i der at i o n o n r emand, fo rs i m i l arr ea so ns as expla i ned i n ourdi scussi on o fConditi ons 4- 7.

III. C ON CLU SI ON Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A F F I RM Goo dwi n’ s co nvic tio n, V ACATE th e s u p er vis ed rele as e p or tio n o f h is s e nt e nc e , a nd R EMA ND to the di st r i ctc o ur t f o rr es en t e n c i n gc o n s i s t e n twi th th i s o p i n i o n . T h e r e s e n t e nc i ng sh all b e l i m i ted to a re ass ess m ent o fthe l ength of G oo d w in ’s s u p er vis ed rele as e a n d an y s p ec ial c on d it i o ns i mpo s e d d ur i ngthi s p e r i o d.

5- 8- 13