The Honor able Ave rn Cohn, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0013n.06 F iled: Janu ary 8, 2007 No. 05-6652 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. AA RO N D AL E T HO MA S, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Before: SUTTON and GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; and COHN, DistrictJudge. * AVERN COHN, Distr ict Judge . Th is i s a c ri min a l c a se . D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt, Aa ro n D a le Thomas (Thomas) , appea ls from a modification of his conditions of supervised re lease . Thomas is on supervised re lease afte r ser ving a period of inc arc eration for a ba nk robber y conviction. T h e d is tr ic t c o urt m o d if

ie d T h o ma s ’ s u

p e r v is e d r e le a s e b y

r e qu ir in gh im

to p arti c ip ate in

a s e xoffe nder a ssessment prog ram in orde r to deter mine the nee d for se x -off ender treatment. Thomas appea ls, arguing that the modification is not reasona bly related to his bank robber y conviction, his history

or cha rac teristics, and imposes a greater de privation on his liberty than is nece ssary . We ag ree . Acc ording ly , the dec ision of the district court is REVERSED and the spec ial condition is VACATED.2 I. O nAp r i l 2 0 , 1 9 9 4 , T h o m a s w a s c h ar g e d i na th r e e c o un ti n d i c t m e n tw i thb an k r o b b e r y, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). On Apr il 30, 1994, Thomas pled g uilty to count one and the oth e r t wo c ounts we re dis mis se d at se nte nc ing . T he pr e -s e nte nc e inv e sti g atio n r e po rt (P SR) detailed Thoma s’ rather e x tensive cr iminal hist ory . One of his prior offe nses was a

1986 conviction for se x ual batter y . Acc ordingto the PSR , Thomas, then ag e twenty -five, w as cha rg ed with rape afte r his former g irlfriend discove red him eng ag ing in se x ual interc ourse with herniney e ar- old da ug hte r. Th oma s p le d guil ty to s e xua l ba

tte ry and wa s se nte nc e d to thr e e y e ars in prison. On J uly

25, 1996, Thomas was se ntence d to 151 months i mprisonment followed by three y ear s supervised r elea se. His sentenc e included the standard c onditions of supervised re lease and the fo llo wi ngsp e c ia l c on dit ion s o f s up e rv ise d r e le a se : ( 1) tha t T ho ma s se c ur e and

ma int a in sta ble e mpl oy

me nt; (2 ) t

hat he pa rt ic ipate in a lc oh ol/ dr

ugte sti ng/tr e atme nt a

nd me nta l he a lth treatment; and (3) that he pay $8,786.00 restitution. His sentence w as af firmed on a

ppeal. United States v. Thomas , 132 F.3d 34 ( 6th Cir. Dec. 4, 1997) (Table ). Thomas’s thre e y ear

supervised r elea se term c ommenced on June 17, 2005. About one month later, on Jul y

22, 2005, a probation officer petitioned the district court to orde r an additional specia l condition mandating that Thomas “par ticipate as dire cted in a pr og ram of mental hea lth treatment, includinga sex-offe nder tre atment prog ram,” and that he “ abide by the ru le s, re qu ir e me nts , a

nd c on dit ion s o f t

he tr e atme nt p ro g ra

m, whic h ma

y inc lud e su

bmi tti ngto3

polyg raph te sting.” On Octobe r 13, 2005, the district cour t conducted a

hear ing on the petition to modi fy the c on dit ion s o f T ho ma s’ su pe rv ise d r e le a se . T he pr ob atio n o ff ic e r t e sti fi e d a s f

oll ow s: The g overnme nt: And in y our experienc e with Mr. Thomas, ha s he g ener ally fulfilled the conditions of his supervised r elea se? Probation office r: At this ti me, Mr. Thomas ha s shown compliance , there have not

be e n a ny c on c e rn s. The g overnme nt: Thank you.

An d h ave y ou

re c omm e nd e d a

n a dd iti on a l c on dit ion

fo r h is supervised r elea se? Pr ob atio n o ff

ic e r: Th at is c or

re c t. The g overnme nt: And what is that condition? Pr ob atio n o ff

ic e r: Th at c on dit ion

sp e c if ic a lly is f or me nta l he a lth , whic h is a specifie d sex offender

treatment, which would allow for our off ice to better super

vise Mr. Thomas. Th e g ov e rnme nt: I s th e re so me thi ngin M r. Th oma s’ re c or d th at le d you to rec ommend that condition? Probation office r: As containe d in the Presentenc e Report, he had a c onviction for

sexual battery . Ibelieve that was in J anuar y of 1986. The g overnme nt: And is it the practice of your off ice to re commend such c ondition for of fende rs with an off

ense like tha

t on their rec ord? Probation office r: For approximately

one y ear now, we ha

ve bee n either – e ither one of two appr oache s have be en take n. We have e ither pre sented the offe nder w ith the opportunity to sign a waiver to modify

the c on dit ion s. An d if

no t, w e may

have to t ake the matte r t o c ourt to deter mine whether

those conditions should be modified. And for the past y ear , we have bee n pushing that issue if they have a conviction surroundinga sex crime.

... Probation office r: ... Sometimes what our position is, we’ll say at a minimum we fe el like the individual needs to be a ssessed to deter mine whether

or not the re is a ne e d f or se x off e nd e r t re atme nt.4

J A at 7-9. On c ro ss- e xami natio n, the pr ob atio n o ff ic e r t e sti fi e d th at T ho ma s h a d b e e n c omp lia nt i n c on ta c tin gthe pr ob atio n o ff ic e r a nd ma int a ini nge mpl oy

me nt. Th e pr ob atio n o ff

ic e r a lso testified that the sole ba sis for see king se x -off ender trea tment was Thomas’ 1986 c onviction and that “in terms of my

interac tion with him , there has not bee n any thing that ha s raised a

ny red flag s of any

thing.” J A at 11. Importantly , when a sked to descr ibe the natur e of a n assessment for se x -off

ender treatment, the probation off icer testified: Pr ob atio n o ff

ic e r: My

un de rs tand ing .. .th e a sse ssm e nt i s a pp ro ximate ly

a thr e e month period whic h consists of individual and g roup counse ling se ssions on a we ekly

basis. And I

believe at some point during that pe riod, y ou will come to them for a polyg raph e x amination.

... Probation office r: ... Ithink they are wee kly

counselingsessions, but it m ay be a g ro up or it m ay be jus t on e vis it o n a

we e kly ba sis

... Thomas’ Counsel: Would i t be fa ir to say that this is an ex tensive eva luation? Pr ob atio n o ff

ic e r: B a se d u

po n th e tim e fr ame , n o d ou bt, to m ake an a c c ur ate deter mination and rec ommendation. J A at 14. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

dis a g re e d w iththe pr ob atio n o ff ic e r’ s r e qu e st that T ho ma s p art ic ipate in a se x-of fe nd e r t re atme nt p ro g ra

m, b ut d e te rm ine d th at he sh ou ld u nd e rg o a n a sse ssm e nt t o deter mine the nee d for se x -off ender treatment. Part of the district cour t’s decision to order

an assessment, instead of

treatment, was base d on the non-re curr ence of any sex-offense violations since 1986. The district court also re cog nized that the assessment was intrusive, but found that5

the intrusion was justified based on the rec ord. II. A. Th is C ourt re vie ws a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s imp os iti on of a sp e c ia l c on dit ion

of su pe rv ise d r e le a se for abuse of discre tion. United States v. Ritter , 1 18 F .3 d 5 02 , 5 04 (6 th C ir . 1 99 7) ; United States v. Modena , 302 F.3d 626, 636 ( 6th Cir. 2002). B. “This Circuit mandates that where a condition of super vised rele ase is re asonably related to the dual g oals of probation, the reha bilitation of the defenda

nt and the prote ction of the public, it mustbe upheld.” Un ite d S tates v . B or te ls , 962 F.2d 558. 560 ( 6th Cir. 1992). More specific ally , under 18 U .S.C. § 3583(d), a district court may impose a non-manda

tory specia l condition of supervised r elea se if it deter mines that the condition is reasona bly related to sever al se nte nc ingfa c tor s. Th e se fa c tor s are : the nature and cir cumstance s of the off ense a nd the history

and cha rac teristics of the defe ndant, the nee d for the se ntence imposed to affor d adequate deter renc e to cr iminal conduct, to prote ct the public fr om further crimes of the def endant, a nd to provide the defe ndant with neede d educa tional or vocational training , medical c are or other voc ational treatment in the most effec tive manner . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) , (a) (2)( B) -(D) . The c ondition also must “involve[] no g reater de privation of lib e rt y tha n is re a so na

bly ne c e ssa ry fo r” se ve ra l se nte nc ingpurp os e s; “ a ff or d a de qu ate deter renc e to cr iminal conduct; ...to protect the public f rom furthe r cr imes of the def endant; and ... provide the de fenda

nt with needed e ducational or vocational tra ining, medic al ca re or other6

c o r r e c t i o n a l tr e at m e n ti nth e m o s te f f e c t i v e m an n e r . ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B )
- ( D ) . F i n a l l y, the condition must be “consistent with any pertinent policy

statements issued by

the Sentencing Commi ssion.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(3). C. At the tim e of

the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on , th is C ir c uit ha d n ot a dd

re sse d whe n it

is appropr iate to impose a sex-offe nder tre atment prog ram a s a spec ial condition of supervised re le a se wh e re the un de rl yingc ri me is n ot s e xua l in natur e . Apa

ne l of thi s Co ur t r e c e ntl y addre ssed the issue in United States v. Carter , 463 F.3d 526 ( 6th Cir. 2006). The fa cts and c ircumstance s of Carter are strikingly

simil ar to those pr esente d here . The defe ndant, L arr

y Carter (Carte r) plea ded guilty

in 2001 to being a

convicted f

elon in possession of a fi re arm . In 2 00 3, fo llo wi nga re mand fr om t his Court , Ca

rt e r r e c e ive d a

se nte nc e of

thi rt y months im prisonment and thre e y ear s supervised r elea se. The se ntence included the spe cial condition of supervised r elea se that he pa rticipate in menta l health treatment as approve d by the Probation Offic er. Car

ter’s supe rvised re lease term beg an on September 19, 2003. On September 29, 2004, Car

ter a dmitted to viol atinghis supervised re lease by committing another crime. The district court re voked the supe rvised re lease and imposed a se ntence of twelve months imp ri so nme nt f

oll ow ingby

tw o ye ars su

pe rv ise d r e le a se wi th t

he same me nta l he a lth condition noted above. In May 2005, the g overnme nt petitioned the district court to modify Carter ’s terms of supervised r elea se to include that Car ter pa rticipate in a

sex-offende r treatment prog ram. The7

rec ommendation based on the fac t that Carter w as convic ted in 1988 for r ape dur ing a burg lary and for assault with intent to commit rape. The district c ourt g rante d the modification and Car ter appea led. Th e pa ne l f ir st c on c lud e d th at “ a

se x-of fe nd e r- tr e atme nt c on dit ion is n ot r e a so na

bly related to beinga fe lon in possession of a fire arm.” Carter , 463 F.3d at 530. The pane l then considere d whether

the spec ial condition was re asonably related to “the history

and char acte ristics of the def

endant.” Id . Ca

rt e r a rgue d th at th e 19 98 c onvic tio ns we re too re mot e in tim e to j us tif

y imp os iti on

of the sp e c ia l c on dit ion . T he pa ne l lo ok e d to c a se s f

ro m ot he r C ir c uit s which addr essed the imposition of sex-offende r conditions based on c onvictions that were sever al y ear s old. The pane l considere d the Eig hth Circuit’s decision in Un ite d S tates v . S c ott , 270 F.3d 632 ( 8th Cir. 2001) which vac ated a number of se x -off

ender conditions that the district c ourt jus tif ie d o n th e ba sis of

a fi ft e e n ye ar o ld s e x off

e ns e . T he pa

ne l a lso loo ke d to the Ni nth Circuit’s holding in United States v. T.M. , 330 F.3d 1235, 1237, 1240 ( 9th Cir. 2003), where the court he ld that “supervise d rele ase c onditions predicated upon twe nty -y ear -old incidents, without more, do not promote the g oals of public prote ction and dete rre nce.” T.M ., 330 F.3d at 1240. Although the panel in Carter did not decide “ prec isely how much time must elapse be fore a sex offense become s too remote in time to be re asonably related to a sex-offe nder c ondition,” beca use Carte r’s seve nteen year old conviction fit “comfor tably ” within the par ameter s of Sc ott and T.M. , it concluded that it was too re mote in time to jus tify imposit ion of the sex-offe nder condition. Carter , 463 F.3d at 532. Overa ll, the panel vac ated the spe cial condition as not being
r e a s o n a b l y r e l at e d

t o th e c h ar g e d

o f f e n s e o r C art e r ’ s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y.There is one fac t in Carter not present he re. Car

ter ha d a 2004 stalkingconviction 1 which the pa

nel found may

encompa ss sex ual conduc t. The pane l theref ore r emande d the matter to th e d is tr ic t c o urt t o d e te r mi n e if th e 2 0 0 4 c o n v ic ti o nw o u ld ju s ti f y th e im p o s it io no f

s e xof fe nd e r t re atme nt. 8 We see no mea

ningf ul differ ence in the circ umstances in Carter and tho se pr e se nt i n th is c a se . F ir st, it c ann ot b e sa id t hat a se x-of fe nd e r a sse ssm e nt i s r e a so na bly re late d to the of

fe ns e 1 of bank r obbery . I t is no more sexual in nature than beinga fe lon in possession of a fire arm. Second, as in Carter , there was no e vidence prese nted other tha n the fa ct of the pr ior conviction to justi fy sex-offende r trea

tment. I ndeed, the probation off icer admitted there wer e no “r ed flag s” and that Thomas was pe rfor ming we ll on supervised re lease . Although in imposing an assessment, as oppose d to treatment, the district c ourt attempted to justify its decision by ref ere nce to Thoma s as an individual, there is simpl y nothing in the r ecor d to support the modification other than the fac t that Thomas was c onvicted twenty y ear s ag o for a

sex offense. Under Carter , this is not sufficie nt to show that the modification is reasona bly related to the nature of the off

ense or the cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt. The g overnme nt makes much of the fac t that the district court did not impose the specia l condition reque sted - that Thomas pa rticipate in a

sex-offende r treatment

prog ram - but r ather require d that Thomas par ticipate in a se x -off

ender assessment

p r o g r am . T h e g o v e r

n m e n ts ays that this dist inction is critical in terms of the a ppeal. We disag ree . As rec og nized by both the pr ob atio n o ff

ic e r a nd dis tr ic t c ourt , th e a sse ssm e nt p ro g ra m is an inte ns ive pr og ra

m. It w ill require Thomas to attend we ekly g roup and individual counse ling se ssions over a pe riod of approximately

three months, and require him to subm it to a poly g raph. The imposit ion of the assessment is in many

way s no less stringe nt than requiringsex-offende r treatment. Under the9

c ir c ums tanc e s, the mod if

ic atio n c on sti tut e s a

“ g re ate r d e pr ivatio n o f l ibe rt y tha n is re a so na

bly
n ec es s ary . ” 1 8 U. S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (d )( 2 ). Aga i n , fo l l o wi n g Carter , the condition cannot stand. Finally , the g overnme nt cites two ca ses from the F irst Circuit that have upheld the imposit ion of sex-offende r asse ssment and treatment even thoug h the cha rg ed off enses we re not sex crimes. Neither c ase is ana logous. In United States v. Proc hner , 417 F.3d 54, 64 ( 1 Cir. st 2005), the de fenda

nt was convic ted of c redit ca rd fr aud. At the time of se ntencing , it was re c omm e nd e d th at de fe nd ant u nd e rg o a n a sse ssm e nt t o d e te rm ine wh e the r h e sh ou ld p art ic ipate in a sex-offende r trea

tment prog ram. The district court imposed the re quirement a s a spec ial c on dit ion of su pe rv ise d r e le a se . D e fe nd ant c ha lle ng e d th e re qu ir e me nt o n a pp e a l. T he F ir st Circuit affir

med, noting that the fac t that defe ndant’s off ense is not a se x ual offe nse does not automatically

bar the specia l condition. However , unlike this case, the r ecor d contained r ece nt evidenc e that the de fenda nt “eng ag ed in inappropr iate conduc t with minors” ... “[e]nt ries in the journal [defenda

nt] possessed at the time of his arre st indicate that he ma y have ha d, or, at minimum , desired to ha

ve, sexual relationships with adolesce nt males... and [a] report by [defendant’ s] m ental hea lth ex pert a nd an eva luation by

a clinica l social worke r, howe ver, sug g est[ed] that Prochner has a pote ntial problem with adolesce nt males.” Id. at 63-64. B ased on this evidence , the Fir st Circuit found the condition was re asonably related to the char acte ristics of the def

endant a nd to the g oals of dete rre nce a nd protec tion of the public. As e xpla ine d a

bo ve , th e re c or d d oe s n ot c on ta in a ny su c h e vid e nc e wi th r e g ard to T ho ma s. In Un ite d S

tates v . York, 357 F.3d 14 ( 1st Cir. 2004), the defe ndant pled guilty to mailing a thre ateningletter to his estrang ed common-la w spouse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876.10

Def endant wa s sentence d to 41 months i n prison, to be followed by three y ear s of supervise d rele ase. A s part of his super vised rele ase, the district court re quired de fenda nt to participate in a sex-offende r trea

tment prog ram a

nd to submitto periodic polyg raph te sting a s a mea ns to ensure his pa rt ic ipatio n in

that pr og ra

m. D e fe nd ant o bje c te d to the sp e c ia l c on dit ion . T he F ir st C ir c uit a ff ir me d, no tin gthat de fe nd ant h a s an e xten siv e c ri min a l hi sto ry re latin gto s e x cr ime s a

nd “ is a rec idivistsex offender

who was c onvicted of a

sex crime only

three y ear s prior to the sentenc ing hear ing.” Id. at 20 n. 5. Ag a in, the re is n o s uc h e vid e nc e wi th r e g ard to T ho ma s. III . For the re asons stated a

bove, the de cision of the district cour t is REVERS ED and the specia l condition is VACATED.