## 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. 07

- 3953 U NI T ED S T A T E SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. B RUCE J. R HOD ES, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07 C R 94

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Judg e.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 23, 2008

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 13, 2009

Befo re B AUER, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. Bruce R h odes ple d gui l ty to k n o wi n g l y p o s s e s s i n ga c o mpu t e r h a r d d r i v e c o nta i n i n g v id eo d ep ict ion s o f a m in or en ga gin g in se x u ally ex pl i ci t co nduc t, i n v i o l at i o n of1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 25 2( a) ( 4)
. The co ur t se nt en ce d Rho des to a te n- y ea r te r m o f i m pr i so nm entf o l l o wed b y a l i fe te r m o fs upe r vi se d r el ea se . The cour t i m posed se ver alspeci alcon d itio ns o fsuperv i sed r el ea se , a nd Rh o des no w cha l l enges j us t a po r ti o n o fo ne2 N o. 07

- 3953 condi ti on

— penil e pl ethys m ogr aph testi ng ( known as “PPG ” i n m edi calci rcl es)

— w h ich h e fin d s p ar ti c u lar ly i nvasi ve f orr eas ons th at w i l l be evi dent w hen thi s pro ced u r e i s d e s c r ib e d b e l o w.

I . B a c kg r o und I n J anuary20 07, Rhodes’ s then-g i rl f ri end re po rt ed to p o l i c e th a ts h e h a d d i s c o v e r e d v i d e o s o n Rh o d e s ’ s c o mpu terthatshe th o ughtc o nt ai ned chi l d pornog ra phy. Pol i ce o bt aine d a war r an t an d se i ze d Rho des ’ s co m put er . F o r en si c ex ami na ti o n o fthe c o m put errev eal ed pi ctur es a nd vid e o s c on ta in in g c h ild re n en ga ge d in s ex u ally ex p licit ac ts
. R h od es ad m itt ed to d ow n loa d in g an d vie w in g c h ild pornog ra phy. A gr and j ury re turned a si ngl e- count ind i ctm ent o fkno w i ngl y pos ses si ng a com p u te r hard dri ve co nt aini ngv i deo de pi ct i o ns o fa min o r e ng ag i ngin se xual l y e xpli ci t co nd uct, to wh i ch Rhodes pl ed gui l ty. I n sent enci ng Rhodes, th e di str i ct c ourtnot ed that R hodes had a pri orco nvi cti on f orthi rd- degre e s exual ass aul t. The co nvi cti on a ro se f ro m hi s hav i ng se xual i nt e r c o ur s e wi th a thi r t e e n- y e a r - o l d g i r l, a c ha r g e t o w h ich h e p led n o-c o n t e st in a W isc on sin st at e c ou rtin 20 00
. Bas ed o n th at co nv i ct i o n, th e co ur t f o und th at th e man da t o r y s t a t ut o r y e nh anceme ntu nd e r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 252(b) ( 2) appli ed, wh i ch se t the m i ni m um te rm o f i m pri sonm ent a t t en ye ar s a nd the m ax i m um attwenty y ea r s. The c o ur t al so c al cul at ed th e adv i so r y s en te nc i ng ra nge under the U. S. S entenci ng Guidel i nes. Rhodes had an o ffense l eve l o f26 and a c ri m i na l h i sto rycat ego ryo f I V, wh i ch p lac ed h im i n the advi sor y r ange of92 to 11 5N o. 07

- 3953 3

m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. The c ou rt not ed that the s tatute ma n d a t e d a mi n i mu m s e n t e n c e th a t wa s g r e a t e r th an t he advi sor y r ange and sente nced Rhodes to te n yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent, wh i ch w as to run co nsecutive l y t o the s entence i m posed i n the W i sco nsi n sta te cour t forthe viol ati on o f hi s t er m o fexte nd ed su p ervi si on. The i m pri sonm ent was to be fol l owed bya l i fe t er m o fsup er vi sed r el eas e su b j ec t t o t h e m an d at or y a n d st an d ar d co n d itio n s. See U
. S. S.G. § 5 D1. 3. The co urt al so f ound that ni ne speci al co ndi ti o ns wer e a ppr o pr i at e. The c o ndi ti o n a t i ss ue sta te d t hat Rhodes w as to “und er go a psyc hose xual eval uati on a nd part i ci pate in an o utpati ent s ex o ffender counsel i ng pro gr am i fr eco m m ended by the ev al uator whi c h mayi nv o l v e us e o fpo l y g r a pha nd p l e thy s mog r a ph ex ami na ti o ns . ” Rho des ’ s at to r ne y made a br i efa nd un

adorne d obj ecti on t o thi s co nd i ti on o n genera l Fi fth A m endm ent g ro und s. I n e x p lai nin g the prop riety ofthe sen ten ce, the cou rt ex pr es se d tha t, i n l i g ht of Rho des ’ s pr ev i o us c o nv i ct i o n, hi s po ss es si o n o fmor e th an1 50 i m ag es a nd vi d eos co nt a i ningc hi l d p o r no g ra phy s ug g e s t e d tha th e h a d a “danger ous att ra cti on to chi l dren. ” The cour t note d that h is p os se ss ion of a c om p u t er w as in v iola tio n of a c on d iti o n o fhi s st at e su per vi si o n. He a l so previ o us l y ha d the oppo r t un i t y t o p a r t i c i pa t e in t r e a t men twh i l e u nd e r s t a te su p ervision, b u t he ad m itted that his attitud e had i nt erfer ed wi tht r ea tment
. The c o ur t f o und tha t hi s ac ti o ns cre ate d a r i sk that he would co m m i t a dd i ti onal cri m i nal acts , pl aci ng the co m m unity

— especi al l y c hi ldren

— in j eopar dy. Rhodes now appeal s the abo ve- m entio ned spe ci alc o ndi ti o n.4 N o. 07

- 3953 I I . Discussi on Peni l e pl ethys m ograph te sti ng i s a pro cedure that

“ i nv o l v e s p l a c i nga p r e s s ur e - s e ns i t i v e de v i c e a r o un d a m an ’s p en is, p re se n tin g h im w ith an a r r a y of s ex u ally sti m ula ti ng i m age s, and deter m i ni ng hi s l eve l o fse xual at tr ac tio n by m ea s u rin g m in u te ch an ge s in h is e re c tile re sp on se s.” Ja s o n R . Od es h oo , O f Pe nol ogy and Perve rs i ty: The Use of P enile P lethy sm o gra ph y o n C o nv icted C hil d S ex O ffend ers , 14 T E MP . P OL . & C IV . R TS . L. R EV . 1, 2 ( 20 04 )
. The u s e o fP P G te st in g “ h as be c om e ra th er rou tin e in ad u lt sexualo ffender tr eat m ent pr ogr am s, ” U ni t e d S ta te s v. Weber, 45 1 F
. 3d 552, 56 2 ( 9th Ci r. 20 06), a nd co urts have uphe l d c o ndi ti o ns requ i r i ngo ffen der s to unde r g o PP G te st in g u n d er v ar iou s le ga l ch alle n ge s. See O d es h oo , sup ra , at 20 n
. 151-52 (coll ectin g cases ). Though the use o fPPG is notuncom m on, exp er ts disa gr ee as to i ts effecti venes s. “The r el i abi l i ty and val i dity ofthi s p rocedure i n cl i ni calas ses sm ent hav e no t be en w el l es tabl i shed, and cl i ni calexper i ence su gge sts that su bj ects c an sim ulate respo ns e by mani pul at i ng m ental i m age s. ” A M . P SY CHI AT R I C A SS ’ N ., D I AGN OS T I C AN D S TATI S TI CAL M ANUAL OF M ENTAL D I S ORDERS5 6 7 (4 th ed ., text re vi si on 2 000); seeal s o D ea n T on g, The Penil e Ple t hys m ograph, Abe l As s e s s m e ntf orSe xual Int e r e s t, an d M S I-II: Are They Sp eak ing the Sa m e La ng ua ge? , 35 A M . J. OF F AM . T HE RAPY, 1 8 7, 1 9 0 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ Th e PPG , wh e n a dm i ni ste re d proper l y, r epres ents a di re ct and obj ecti ve m eas urem ent of a m an’ s l eve l of sexual ar ousalto nor m al ve r su s se xua l i ze d s ti m ul i
. S i nc e th er e i s a st r o ngr el at i o nshi p between an i nd i vi du al ’ s patt er n ofse xual ar ou salN o. 07

- 3953 5 and the probabi l i ty that he m ay orwil l actupon that ar ousal, an i m port ant fi rs t ste p i n gauging one ’s p ro pensi ty to sexualdevi ancy i s to obt ai n an ac curat e a sse ssm en t o f th at p er so n ’s s ex u al a ro u sa l p at te rn s, w h ich is p re c ise ly w h at th e P P G d oe s.” ); Jam es M . Pe te rs , A ssessm ent a nd Trea t m e nt o

f Sex O ffend ers: Wha t A tto rney s Need t o Know , A DVO CATE , D ec . 199 9, at 23 (19 99 ) (P P G “is i nv al uabl e i n the e va l ua ti o n, t r ea tmenta nd mana g ement of kn ow n se x u al off en d er s.” ); Joh n M at t h ew Fa b ian , The R isky B usin ess of C o nd uc ting R iskA ssessm ents f o rTho se A lread y C i v i l l y C o m m itted a s Sexu a llyVio lent P reda to rs , 32 W M . M IT CHELL L. R EV . 81, 101 ( 2 0 0 5 ) (“[S] om e evalua tors b elie ve th at p oly gr ap h an d [P P G ] te st in g a re u n re l i a b le and i nval i d, an d thus shoul d be pro hibi ted be cause such d ata m a y l ead to f alse pos iti ves, sugge sting th at an offen derwi l l r eo ffen d whenhe ul ti m at ely do es not.”); Od esho o, s up ra , a t 43 (“W hy, g i ve n the f ac t th atPP G i s m or e e xpensiv e, m or e t i m e- consum i ng, m or e intrusi ve an d d eg ra d in g, an d n otd em on st ra b ly m or e re liab le than the pol ygr aph, would author i ti es n onethel ess i nsi st th at sex offen d ers su bm it to PP G exam inations ?”). T he dist r ic t c ou rt i m p osed a spe cial con d iti on of sup ervi se d r el ea se tha t fi r st r equi r es a psy ch o se xua l e va l ua ti o n, whi chc o ul d the n l ea d t o mandat o ry p ar ti ci pat i o n i n a sex of fe nd e r t r e a t men tp r o g r a m. As p a r to fs uc h a p r og r a m, Rh o d e s c o u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o u n d e r g o p o l y g r a ph and PPG testing. R hodes obj ecte d “f orthe re cor d” on F i fth A m en d m en t g ro u n d s w ith ou t e lab or at ion . On ap p ea l, he ar gues that b ec ause PPG te sti ng i m pli cate s a si gni fi cant l iber ty i nter est, t h e d i str i ct c ourtsho uld be re quir ed to st ate thatthe condi ti on “ i nvol ves no g re ate r6 N o. 07

- 3953 depri vati on o fl iber ty than i s r eason abl y nec ess ar y. ” 1 8 U
. S. C
. § 3583 (d)(2). R hod es con ced es th at ou r st a nd ard ofr evi ew atthi s s tag e i s fro m the narr ow p er specti ve of pla i n er ro r because he di d not o b j ec t t o the c ondit i on o n th e s am e g ro u n d s t h at h e ra ise s in th is a p p ea l. U nited State s v. Schalk, 515 F.3d 768 , 776 (7th C ir. 2008). A d ist ri ct c ourthas the di scr eti on t o i m pose speci al c on d itio n s o f su p er vis ed rele as e i fth e c on d itio n : (1) is r ea so nabl y r el at ed to the na tu r e an d c i r cumst an ce s o fthe offense, the hi sto ryand char acte ri sti cs o fthe defe nd ant, and th e n e e d t o p r o v i de a de qu a t e de t e r r e nc e t o c r i mi nal co nduc t, pr o te ctthe pub l i c, a nd r eh abi li ta te the defe nd ant; ( 2) i nvol ves no gr eat er depri vati on of l iber ty th an i s reason ably nec essary for the p urp oses of det erre n c e, p u b lic p ro te c tio n, an d reh ab ilita tio n ; a n d (3 ) is consi ste nt w i th any p er ti nent p ol i cy stat em ents i ssued by th e Sent en cing C om m issi on. 18 U
. S. C
. §§ 3553(a), 3583 (d). W h en cr aft in g a d efe n d an t’s se n te n c e, th e d ist ric t c ou rtis no t r equi r ed to a ddr es s ea chf ac to r “ i n c he ck l i stf ash ion, expli ci tl y a rt i cul ati ng i ts conclus ion f orea ch f acto r, ” a s l o nga s th e co ur t’ s st at emento fr ea sons i s ade qua te a nd c on sis te n t w ith th e fa c to rs . U ni t e d St at e s v. PanaiguaVerdug o , 537 F
. 3d 72 2, 7 28 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. Be ca us e PPG tes ti ng i s m ental l y a nd physi cally intrusi ve, Rhodes u rg es u s t o follo w th e N in th C irc u it’s ap p ro ac h in U ni t e d St at e s v. Weber, 4 51 F
. 3d 55 2 ( 9th Ci r . 2 00 6) a nd r equi r e th e di st r i ctc o ur t to s ta te pr ec i se l y why th e PPG te st i ngi s no g r ea te r depr i va ti o n o fl ibe r tytha n i s r ea so nably nec essary. In de term ining th at a sp ecial proced ure is w arr an te d b efo r e PPG t es tingc anb e i m po se d, the N inth Circu it noted that a nu m ber of l e s s i n tru sive alter-N o. 07

- 3953 7

n at ive s e x istfor t re at in g s ex offe n d er s. Id. at56 7- 68. T h e c ou rtd ec lin ed to sa y “ c at eg or ica lly th at
. . . ple thysm ogr aph tes ti ng ca n neverr eas onabl y pr om ote at lea st o n e, if no t a ll th re e, of th e re lev an t g oa ls laid ou t in § 3 553( a) ( 2)

— na m ely, de te r r en ce , pub l i c pr o te ct i o n, a nd re habi l i tat i on. ” Id. at56 6. T h e g o v e r n me n t, o n th e o th e rh a n d , as k s th a twe f o l l o w the S i xth Ci r cui t’ s appr o ac h i n U ni t e d St at e s v. Lee, 50 2 F
. 3d 447 ( 6th Ci r. 20 07) and dism iss the cl ai m as unr i pe. I n Lee, the distric t cour t i m posed the condi ti on th at u p on r el ea se , the de fen dan t “mustpa r ti ci pat e i n a speci al i zed se x offender t reatm ent pr ogr am thatm ay i ncl ud e the use ofpl ethys m ogr aph orpol ygr ap h. ” Id. at 449. The S i xth Cir cui t hel d the cl aim w as notr i pe f or tw o re as on s. Fi rs t, the condi ti on o nl y potenti allyr eq u ire d th e d efe n d an t t o h av e P P G te st in g. Id. at450. The defe nd ant would notbe r eleased fro m pri son f or f ourt een y ear s, and the cour t co u l d not pre dictwh ether the pr ob ati on o ffi ce woul d, i n f act, fi nd the tes ti ng nece ssar y forthe defe nd ant’ s t re atm ent a t that t i m e. Id. “[ G] i ve n tha t th e o cc as i o n m ay ne ve r a r i se , Le e’ s co nte n tio n th at h e w ill ac tu ally be su b j ec t t o p en ile ple thysm ogr aph test i ng i s m er e co nj ectur e. ” Id. S e c o nd , th e co ur t no te d tha t i t was unc l ea r whethe r P PG t es ting woul d s ti l l b e us ed f o r e va l ua ti o n o r t r ea tmentb y the ti m e th e defen dan t was r el eased f r o m pr i so n, s i nc e PPG te st i ng“ i m pl i ca te s si g ni fi ca ntl ibe r tyi nt er ests, a nd further, i ts re l i abi l i ty i s quest i onabl e. ” Id. W e fi nd the Si xt h Ci r cui t’ s r ea so ni ngpe r su as i ve a nd co ns i st en t wi tho ura ppr o ac h i n U nited Sta tes v. Sch o enbo rn ,8 N o. 07

- 3953 4 F
. 3d 14 24 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3)
. I n Sc ho enbo rn , th e d efen dan t was s en te nc ed to i m pr i so nm en t f o r fi ve y ea r s, the sta tutor y m axi m u m te rm , f ol l owed bysuperv i sed r el eas e f o r thr ee y ea r s, a l so the s ta tu to r y maxi m um t er m . The defe nd ant arg u ed that any v i ol ati on o fhi s s up er vi sed re l eas e, “s ay for m i ssi ng an appoint m ent with hi s probatio n offic er or f o r d r i n kin g a be er ,” c ou ld res u lt in ad d iti onalj ai l ti m e e xceedi ng the st atuto rym axi m u m . Id. at 14 34 . W e h eld th at th e c laim w as n otrip e. Id. “ One w ho i nv o k e s the j ur i s di c t i o n o f a fe de r a l c o ur t m ust est ab lish , b ef or e a l l el se, thathe ha s s uffer ed a c oncr ete and parti cul ar i zed i nj ury; a conj ectur alo ne wil l notdo. ” Id. As i n Lee a n d S c ho enbo rn , Rho des ’ s cl ai m i s ba se d o n a nu m ber of continge nc ies. H e w as se n t e n c ed to ten years ofim p ri sonm ent, co nsecuti ve to the t er m i m posed by the s ta te co urt du e t o Rhodes’s vi ol ati on o fexte nd ed su p ervis io n f o r his 2000 con viction. H is term of su p ervi si o n wi l l b eg i n o nl y a fter hi s r el ea se fr o m i m pr i so nm en t (w h ich co u ld n otbe so on er th an eigh t a n d on e-h alf y ea r s afte r he e nt er s th e fede r alpr i so n s y st em upo n the co m pl et i o n o fhi s W isco ns i n s en te nc e, a ss um i ngtha t he gai ns fullcr edi t forsa ti sf acto rybehav i orpursu ant t o 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 6 2 4 ( b ) )
. O n l y th e n c o ul d a n e v a l u a t o r r e c o mm end that he par ti ci pate in an o utpati ent s ex o ffender counse l i ngp r o g r a m. And e v e n i fthe e v a l ua t o r we r e to re com m end a tr eat m ent pr ogr am , PPG test i ng willnot ne ce ss ar i l y b e r equi r ed. Pe r ha ps th e co uns el o r a nd the Pr o ba ti o n Of fi ce r r es po ns ibl e f o r thi s ca se may det er m i ne th at te st in g w ou ld n otbe effic ien t, effe c tiv e, ec on om ica l, ornece ssa ry, o r perhaps they woul d be s ati sfi ed w i th po l y g r apht es tinga l o ne , whi chis notunu su al

. As theN o. 07

- 3953 9 condi ti on i s s tat ed, ther e i s a f ai r am ount of di scr eti on re ga rdi ng the te chniques to be uti l i zed. I n the m eanti m e, th e dev el o pm en t o fs ci en ce o r the l aw may r en derthe PPG te sti ng ir re l evantor even i l l ega l, or m aybe the m ove men twi l l b e i n a di ffe r e ntdi r e c t i o n a l t o g e the r

— a l ot can happ en i n the bett erparto fa decade. W er e w e t o i n s t e a d m o v e a tth i s t i me t o f o l l o w Weberand hol d that the di str i ct c ourthad to st ate wh y PPG was prefer abl e t o l e s s i nt r u s i v e me th o d s f o rth i s p a r t i c u l a r d e fe n d a n t, we w ou ld be a ddr es singa que st i o n ful l o fc o nt i ng en cya nd a b s t r a c t i o n f o un de d in a n e v o l v i ngs c i e nt i fi c fi e l d, p e r ha ps to the det ri m ent o fthe defe nd ant’ s r ehabilitati on

— an d doi ng so with a n und eve l oped tr i alco urt re cor d. Ex perts al r ea d y d isa g r ee a s to whi che va l ua ti o n a nd t r ea tment m etho ds ar e the m osteffe c tiv e, and w e would do wel l to aw ai t a m or e co ncre te prese ntati on o fthi s i ssue. Regar dle ss, R hodes can l ate r peti ti on the d i str i ct c ourtto m od ify th e c on d itio n . Lee, 5 0 2 F
. 3 d a t 4 5 1 ; 18 U
. S
. C. § 3 58 3 ( e )(2) ; s e eal s o Fed. R. Cri m . P. 32
. 1( c)
. Through su ch a pet iti on, he cou ld initi all y pres en t the district cou rt wi th the u p- t o - da t e s c i e nt i fi c a nd l e g a l c r i t i ci s ms o fP PG , ra therthan saving such a pre senta ti on f oran appel l ate b rie f. W e ac kn ow led ge Rh od es ’s c on c er n, as h e c olo rfu lly describes i t, thati fthe dist ri ct c ourtcr ea te d a condi ti on that he go o verN i aga ra Fa l l s in a b ar re l, he s h ou l d be per m i tt ed to c ha l le ng e i t be f o r e he pl um m et s o ve r the edge. I nd eed, i fRhodes were to be o rder ed t o und er go PPG t es ting, he c ou ld be f ac ed wi thunde r g o i ngthe tes ti ng ( orthe al ter nati ve ofvi ol ati ng the co nd i ti on o f supervi sed r el eas e) befor e his r equest to m odi fy was consi dered b y th e di str i ct c ourt
. W e thi nk under those10 N o. 07

- 3953 ci r cumst an ce s, Rho des sho ul d b e per m i tt ed to ha ve the dist ri ct c ourtco nsi der his r equest to m odi fy the co nd i ti on b efo re h e is r e q u ire d to u n d er go th e t es tin g. B u t h e is now h er e nea r such a cre st i n the supervi sed r el eas e proce ss. This i s no t t o saythata defe nd ant ca n never i m m edi ate l y a pp eal a co nd i ti on o fsuperv i sed r el eas e afterse ntenci ng. W e ha ve e nter tai ned such appeal s o n countl ess o cca sio n s. A few exam ple s

— in U ni t e d S t at e s v. R o ss , 4 7 5 F
. 3 d 8 7 1, 875 (7th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , we c o ns i de r e d a defe nd ant’ s a pp eal ofa supervi sed r el eas e co nd i ti on that he par ti ci pate in sex offende r ev alu ati on a nd tr eat
m en t. I n U nite d State s v. H olm , 32 6 F
. 3d 872, 87 7 ( 7th C ir. 2003 ), w e ad d ressed a defen d an t’s app eal ofa sup ervi se d r el ea se c o ndi ti o n pr o hibi tinghi m fr o m us i ngthe I nt erne t en ti r el y. I n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Paul, 54 2 F
. 3d 596, 600-01 (7th Cir. 2008), w e con side red a defen d an t’s appeal o fa supervi sed r el eas e condit i on that he subm i t t o dr ugt es ting . I n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Schave, 18 6 F
. 3d 839, 84 1- 43 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) , we consi d ered the defe nd ant’ s a pp ealo f supervi sed r el eas e c on dit i ons prohibi ti ng hi m fro m dri nki ng al coholand ass oci ati ng with wh i te suprem acy gr oups. I n each of these case s, the defe nd ant w as sentenced to severa l ye ar s’ i m pri sonm ent b efor e the chal l enged te r m s o fs upe r vi si o n c o m m en ce d, y etwe an al y zed th e p ro p rie ty of th e c h alle n ge d su p er vis ed rel e a se co n d iti o ns at th e f r o nt en d o f th o se se nt en ce s. The co nd i ti o ns i n each oftho se cases w er e dete rm i nate, however : Ross w as re quir ed to part i ci pate in sex offende r eval uati onN o. 07

- 3953 11 and tre atm ent, Paul was subj ec t t o drug te sti ng, S chave coul d no t dri nk al cohol or ass oci ate w i th w h ite suprem acy gr oups, and H ol m could notuse the Inter net

— a l l wi th un qu a l i fi e d c e r t a i nty . Rho de s , o n the o the r h a nd , m ay o nl y b e a ffe c t e d b y the c o nd i t i o n a ft e r a s t r i ng o f contingenci es

— h e m u st co m p let e h is p ris on te rm s, h is eval uatorm u st r eco m m end that he undergo a sex offende r counsel i ng pro gr am , and the prog ra m m ust i ncl ud e PPG tes ti ng. There i n l i es the di ffer ence.

I I I . Concl usio n B e c a u s e Rh o d e s ’ s s p e c i a l c o n d i t i o n w i l l o n l y b e c o me effec ti ve a fte r he s er ve s m o r e th an te n y ea r s’ i m pr i so nm en t and seve ra l o therco nd i ti ons ar e m et, we D ISMISSh is cl ai m witho ut prej ud i ce a s unri pe.

1- 13- 09