The Honor able Ge org e C ara m Steeh, Unit ed S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Eastern District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0684n.06 No. 08-6241 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. DANA SCOTT RI CHARDSON, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PE A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AS TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

BEF ORE: GI L MAN and G RI FF I N, Circuit J udg es, and STEEH, D istrict J udg e. * GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Def endant Da na Scott Richardson appea ls his 160-month prison sentenc e and life time term of su pe rv ise d r e le a se a s p ro c e dura lly and su bs tant iv ely

unre a so na

ble a ft e r p le a din g g uil ty to distributing child pornog raphy transporte d i n i n t er state commer ce by computer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) (A). Richa rdson ar g ues that the leng th of his sentence is gr eate r than ne cessa ry to achieve the sentenc ing obje ctives set for th in 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) . We disag ree and af firm. I. On J une 12, 2006, an F BI ag ent enter ed an inter

net chat room and observe d a messag e that invited persons to trade child pornog raphy by downloadinga file- sharingprog ram. The ag entNo. 08-6241

USA v. Ric hardson

- 2 - succe ssfully

downl o ad edt h e p ro gra m , ac ce s s edR i ch ar d s o n ’s computer , and downloade d 305 imag es of minors eng ag ing in se x ually expli cit conduct. The FB Iobtained an d ex ec uted a f eder al sea rch

war rant at Ri ch ar d s o n ’s residenc e and se ized his computer and re lated equipment. Dur ing the

sear ch, Richar dson admitted to ag ents that he used the file-sha ring prog ram to download a nd trade child pornog raphy

on the Interne t. Richardson pled guilty

to distributi ng child pornog raphy transporte d in interstate commer ce by computer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a) (2)( A). The prese ntence repor t (“PSR”) deter

mined that Ric ha

rd so n’ s bas e of

fe ns e le ve l w a s 2 2 p ur su ant t o U .S. S.G . § 2G 2. 2( a )( 2) , T ra ff ic kin g in Materia l I nvolving the Sexual Ex ploitation of a Minor, and assessed hi s criminal history at Categ ory I(base d o n 1 cr i minal history point). The PSR recommended a five-le vel enha

nceme nt under § 2G2.2(3)( B) beca

use his offe nse involved the distribution of child p o rn o gra p hy for “ a thing of

va lue ,” name ly , th e ima g e s h e obtai ned fr om o the rs by sh ari nghis ima g e s. Th e PSR a lso

rec ommended a f

our-le v e l e nh a

n c e me nt u n d e r § 2 G 2.2(b)( 4) bec ause the imag es included de pictions of violence . I n addition, the PS R ap p l i ed a two-level e nhance ment pursuant to § 2G2.2(b) (6) beca use t h e offense involved the use of a computer a

nd a four -leve l enhanc ement under § 2G 2. 2( b) (7 )( C) be c a

us e the of

fe ns e inv olv e d at lea st 3 00 but f e we r t ha n 6 00 ima g e s. Th e PSR aff orded a three -leve l reduc tion for ac cepta nce of responsibi lity

under U .S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a)-( b), yielding a

total offense level of 34 a nd an advisory

Guid el i n es ra n ge of 151 - 188 months of imprisonment.No. 08-6241

USA v. Ric hardson

- 3 - The district cour

t conducted R i chardson’s sentenc ing on Septe mber 30, 2008. F ollowing extensive argument by

the par ties, the distri ct co u rt i m posed a w ithin-Guidelines sentenc e of 160 months of imprisonment and a lifetime term of supervised r elea se. This appea l follows. II. We reviewthe district court’s se ntencingdecisions for r easona bleness under

an abuse- of-discr etion standard. United States v. Bates , 552 F.3 d 4 7 2 , 476 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v. United States , 1 28 S. Ct . 5 86 , 5 94 (2 00 7) ); United States v. Bolds , 51 1 F .3 d 56 8, 57 5 ( 6th Cir. 2007)

. R easonableness re view has both a proce dural a

nd a substantive compone nt. United Sta te s v . S e do re , 512 F.3d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 2008). This court “ must first ensure that the district

c ourt c omm itt e d n o s ig nif

ic ant p ro c e dura l e rr or , s uc h a s f a ili ng to cal c ulate (o r i mpr op e rl y calc ulating) the Guidelines rang e, treating the Guidelines as mandatory , failing to consider the [18 U. S.C. ] § 35 53 (a ) f

a cto rs , s e le c tin g a

se nte nc e ba se d o n c le arl y e rr on e ou s f

a c ts, or fa ili ngto adequately explain the chosen sentenc e . . . .” Ga ll , 12 8 S. Ct. a t 59 7. I f t he se nte nc e is p ro c e dura lly sound, we “ then consider the substantive re asonable ness of the se ntence imposed under a n abuse- of-discr etion standard.” Id. We a pp ly a pr e sumpt ion

of su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss t o sentenc es that fa ll within t he applica ble Guidelines ra

ng e. Se do re , 512 F.3d at 823. III

. Richardson a sserts four arguments on appea l. First, he claims that the district court did not articulate the spec ific we ight it attributed to ea ch § 3553( a) fa ct o r when imposing his sentence

.No. 08-6241

USA v. Ric hardson

- 4 - Next, he argues that the district c ourt err oneously relied upon § 2G2.2 as its “startingpoint” when fashioning his within-Guidelines s entenc e, which he claims is contra ry to United States v. Book

er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He a lso a sse rt s that his 16 0- month pr iso n te rm is su bs tanti ve ly

unre a so na

ble beca use there exis ts a signif

icant disparity

in the leng th of prison sentenc es imposed for similar conduct in the Ea stern District of Tenne ssee. Finally , he contends that a lifetime term of supe rvised rele ase, imposed pur suant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), is substantively unrea sonable be cause it is gre ater than nec essar

y to fulfill the purposes of se ntencingset forth in § 3553(a ). A. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtc o r

r e c t l y c a l c u l a t e d

th e G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e , t r e a t e d t h e r an g e a s a dv i s o r

y,

c on sid e re d th e 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a ) f a c tor s, and e xpla ine d th e se nte nc e it i mpo se d. Ne ve rt he le ss, Ric ha rd so n a rgue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s e xplanatio n o f h is s e nte n c e w a s p r o c e d u ra lly unre a so na

ble beca use it failed to ar

ticulate the weig ht it assigned to e ach § 3553( a) f actor . I n addition, he ar g ues the dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d b e c a

us e it e mpl oy e d § 2G 2. 2 a s it s “ sta rt ing po in t” whe n f

a sh ion inghis
sentenc e. Acc ording to Un ite d S

tates v . Bos tic , “[i] f a pa

rty does not clea

rly articulate any

objection

an d th e g r o u n d s u

p o nw h ic h th e o b

je c ti o nis b a s e d , w h e n g iv e n [a ] f in a l o p p o rtu

n it y [t o ] s p e a k , [] that party will have for feited its opportunity to make any

objections not previously raised a nd thus will face plain err or re view on appe al. ” Un ite d S tates v . B os tic , 371 F.3d 865, 872- 73 (6th Cir. 20 04 ); United States v. Vonne r , 5 1 6 F. 3 d 3 8 2 , 3 8 5 -8 6 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ap p l yi n g Bo sti c ru le toNo. 08-6241

USA v. Ric hardson

- 5 - proce dural- r easona

bleness cla ims). I t is uncontested that Richardson did not obj ect to the dist rict court’s e x planation of his sentenc e whe n it asked the Bo sti c qu e sti on : [ D i s t r i c t C o u rt ] : All rig ht. Mr. Tollison, does the De f e n d a n t h a ve any objection to the sentenc e just pronounce d that has not bee n p r e v i o u s l y

r a i s e d ? [Defense Counsel] : No, y our Honor. Under United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) , a party does not f orfe it its rig ht
to a p p e a l is s u e s “ p r e v io u s ly r a is e d , ” b u t it d o e s u n d e r mi n e it s r igh t “ to c h a ll e n g e th e a d e qu a c y of

a c ourt ’s explanation for the se ntence – an i s s u e that bec[o]me[ s] apparent a s soon as the cour t finish[ es] a

nnouncing its propose d sentenc e[,] and [] counsel nonetheless decline[s] t h e c o u rt’s i n v itation to address” a

ny err ors in the ar

ticulation of that sentenc e. Vonner , 5 1 6 F

. 3 d at 386. (empha sis added). Thus, error s alleg ed relating to the di strict court’s ex planation of his sentence are subject to plain-er

ror r eview. T o establish plain err or, Richar dson must show (1) that an error occur red in the district c ourt; (2) that the e rror was plain, i.e. , o bv iou s or cl e ar; (3 ) that the e rr or a ff e c te d [th e ] de fe nd ant’ s su bs tanti a l r ig hts ; and (4 ) t hat th is adv ers e imp a c t se ri ou sly a ff e c te d th e fa ir

ne ss, int e g ri ty

or pu bli c reputation of the judicial proce eding s. United States v. Alex ander , 5 4 3 F. 3 d 8 1 9 , 8 2 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Un ite d Sta te s v . Ko e be rle in , 161 F.3d 946, 949 ( 6th Cir. 1998)). The sentenc ing transcr ipt r evea ls that the district court eng ag ed in a leng thy discussion of the § 3553(a) fac tors befor e imposing his sente nce. Richardson is inc orre ct insofar as he claims that the distr i ct court was require d to articulate the weig ht it assigned to e ach § 3553( a) f actor when pronouncinghis sentence . We are not “ tasked with demanding that the district judge consider e achNo. 08-6241

USA v. Ric hardson

- 6 - of the issues enume rate d in § 3553(a) equally or eng ag e in a ‘ ritualistic incantation’ of the se statutory fac tors” to c onclude that a defe ndant’s sentenc e is procedur ally rea sonable. United States v. Be nson , 1 9 5 F. Ap p ’x 4 1 4 , 4 1 7 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( u np u b l i s h ed ) ( ci t i n g United St ates v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 709 (6th Cir. 2006)). “Rather, thi s court should review the proc eeding s of the lower court to ensur e that the judg e conside red the statutory fac tors and ade quately articulated his rationale suc h that the resultant sente nce, thoug h not what the def endant d es i re d , cannot be faulted a s unrea sonable for failure to consider issues re levant to § 3553(a ).” Benson , 195 F. App’x at 417. Beca use the district
court wa s not require d to articulate the w ei gh t i t assi g ned to ea ch § 3553(a ) fa ctor, Richar dson cannot de monstrate er

ror, let a lone plain er

ror. Ne xt, Ric ha

rd so n a rgue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr on e ou sly re lie d u po n § 2G 2. 2( a ) a s it s

“ sta rt ingpo int ” wh e n f

a sh ion inghis wi thi n- Gu ide lin e s se nte nc e , w hic h h e a sser ts i s c on tr ary

to United States v. Book

er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). We disag ree . Although the SentencingGuidelines

are advisory , the Supreme Court ha s never theless instructed the district c ourts to c onsult the advisory
sentenc ing r ang e as “the starting point a nd initial benc hmark” of its sente ncing analy sis. Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 596. Thus, this argument plainly lacks mer it. For these re asons, we c onclude that Richa rdson’s sente nce is proc edura lly rea sonable. B. Upon concluding that the sentenc ing decision is pr ocedur ally sound, we “ then consider the substantive rea sonablene ss of the sentenc e imposed under an ab u s e-of -discre tion standard.” Alexande r , 543 F.3d at 822. District courts ar e cha rg ed wit h i m p o sing “ a sente nce suf ficient, butNo. 08-6241

USA v. Ric hardson

- 7 - n o t g r e a te r

th ann e c e s s ar

y , to c o mp ly

w it hth e p u r p o s e s ” o f s e n te n c in g s e t f

o rth in § 3 5 5 3 ( a )

. We apply a re buttable presumption of reasonable ness for sentenc es wit hin the Guidelines ra ng e. Se do re , 512 F.3d at 823. Ric ha rd so n a rgue s th a t th e le ng th o f h is p ri so n te rm is s ub sta nti ve ly unre a so na

ble be c a us e other de fenda

nts in the E as t er n Di strict of Tenne ssee have bee n sentenc ed more leniently for substantially

simil ar c onduct. Specific ally , Ric h ar d s o n identifies two individuals who rec eived shorter pr ison sentence s, his b ro t h er , J ason Richar dson, and Ronald Reag an. The district court

car efully considere d Richardson’s se ntencing - disparity argument, revie wed J ason’s a nd Reag an’s prese ntence repor

ts and sentenc es, and f

ound that Richardson’s c o n d u ct wa s distinguishable a nd

wa rr ante d a lon g e r s e nte nc e : Def endant argues for a below Advisory Guideline sente nce ba sed upon re cent c ases which De fenda

nt sugg ests are simil ar to his. In his sentencingmemorandum Def endant compar ed his ca se to that of Ronald Reag an, sente nced by J udg e Phillips o nJ u l y 2 4 , 2 0 0 8 , an d

D e f e n d a n t ’s b ro t h er , J as o nR i ch ar d s o n , s en t en ce d b y J u d ge J ordan on A

pril 17th, 2008. Th e Court ha s re vie we d e a c h of tho se c a se s and de te rm ine d th a t th e c on du c t of tho se d efe ndants is disting uishable from this de fenda nt’s conduct and, there fore , a differ ence in sentence is warr anted. A s t o M r . R e a g an , t h o u g h M r . R e a g ana g r e e d t h a th e d i s t r i b u t e d

c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y, Mr. Reag an’s c onduct did not involve distributi on fo r pecunia ry g ain or a thing of value, like De fenda

nt’s did, and Mr. Rea g an had f ewe r imag es, 104, than De fenda nt did, betwee n 300 and 599. As to Defe ndant’s brothe r, Jason Ri char dson, Mr. J ason Richar dson ag ree d to the fa c tua l ba sis tha

t he , “k no wi ng ly do wn loa de d, vie we d a

nd po sse sse d im a g e s o f c hil d pornog raphy ,” but n o thing in Jason Ri char dson’s fac tual basis established that he dis tr ibute d c hil d p or

no g ra ph y or of fe re d to tr a de c hil d po rn og ra ph y wi th o the rs , which distinguishes his conduc t from that of the D efe ndant her e.No. 08-6241

USA v. Ric hardson

- 8 - T h e C o u rt notes that in those case s both of the re spective se ntencingjudge s sentenced – also notes that both sentenc ing judg es sentenc ed within the Advisory Guideline Rang e as applicable to those case s; in those instances, at the low or bottom end of the Advisory

Guideline Rang e. I n c omp ari so n to the re le va nt c on du c t in

that c a se , a s th e Go ve rnme nt n ote d in its rep ly to s e n te n c in g me mo r an d u m, th e f a c ts in th is c a s e a s s e t f o rth in the plea a g re e me nt, a s w e ll a s in

the of fe ns e c on du c t outli ne d in the pr e -s e nte nc e re po rt , establishes, amongother thing s, the Def endant e ntere d a cha

t room en t i t l ed “100%te ensexpics,” p-i-c- s, on the I nterne t a nd solicited to tr ade c hild pornog raphy over the I nterne t via a file- sharingprog ram. An un de rc ov e r a g e nt w a s a ble to a c c e pt t

he De fe nd ant’ s f

ile se rv e r a

nd fr e e ly do w n lo a d im a g e s o f

c h il dr e ne n g a g e d

in s e xu a ll y e xp li c it c o n d u c t. D e f e n dant’s c omp ute r w a s late r s e ize d p ur su ant t o a fe de ra l se arc h w arr ant a nd fo re ns ic a lly examined. Th e f o r e n s i c e xam i n a t i o n o f h i s c o mp u t e r c o n f i r m e d t h a t h e h a d d i s t r i b u t e d c hil d pornog raphy

over the I nterne t; that dur i ng execution of the sea rch w arr ant the Def endan t a dmi tt e d

to th e inv e s ti g a ti n g a g e n t t h a t h e h a d

o p e r a te d a f il e - s h ar ing so ft wa re in o rd e r t o s ha

re or dis trib ut e child p or

no g ra ph y ov e r t he I nte rn e t w ith others. Ea rl ie r at th e se nte nc ing he ari ngDe fe nd ant a lso me nti on e d o the r d e fe nd ants re c e ntl y sentenc ed by

this court a

nd argues that those ca ses support a be low Advisory Guideline Rang e sen

te n c e as w ell. Howeve r, base d upon the Court’s re collection and revie w of those case s, none of those defe ndants wer e involved in the distribution of child porn og raphy

simil ar to the of

fense conduct he re suc h as would wa rra nt an argument of unwa

rra nted sentenc e disparity

. Ad dit ion a lly , th e de fe nd ants in ea c h of tho se c a se s, e xce pt f or De rr ic k B la c kmo n, in Case 3:06-c r-96, we re se ntence d with a term of imprisonment within t he Advisory Guideline R ang e calculated based upon their conduct and of fense of convic tion. Mr. Bla ckmon was sentence d below the guideline ra ng e but at the statutory

maxi mum for his offense

. B a sed up on

the Court ’s c on sid e ratio n th e re fo re of De fe nd ant’ s argume nt, in particula r his re q u es t for a

varia nce ba sed upon alleg ed unwa rra nted sentenc ing dis pa ri tie s th a t w ou ld r e su lt f

ro m a wi thi n A dv iso ry

Gu ide lin e Rang e se nte nc e in t his case , the Court would respe ctfully deny Def endant’ s reque sted varia

nce.No. 08-6241

USA v. Ric hardson

- 9 - Section 3553(a) (6) of

Title 18 informs the district court of “ the nee d to avoid unwar rante d
sentenc e disparities among de fenda nts with simil ar recor ds who have been f ound g uilty

of similar conduct[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (6) (emphasis added)

. Richardson ha s not identified an individual who re ceive d a more lenient sentenc e that is g uilty of similar conduc t, specifica lly , distribution of child p o rn og raphy

for a thing of value. The rec ord cle arly demonstrates that the district court

e ng a g e d in

a tho ro ug h a

na ly sis of de fe nd ant’ s r e qu e st f

or a va ri anc e purs ua

nt t o § 35 53 (a )( 6) . T hu s, t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i d

n o t ab u s e i t s d i s cr et i o n i n d ec l i n i n g t o v ary fr o mt h e a dv i s o ry Gu i d el i n es ra n ge based upon the alleg ed disparity

. See U nited States v. Cage , 458 F.3d 537, 542 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Finally , Richardson c ontends that his lifetime term of super vised rele ase, imposed pur suant to 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 83 (k ), is su bs tanti ve ly unre a so na

ble be c a us e it i s g re a te r t

ha n n e c e ssa ry to f ulf ill the purposes of

sentenc ing se t forth in § 3553(a)

. Aga i n , t h e district cour t eng ag ed in a de tailed

ana ly sis of

the § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s b e fo re pr on ounc ingRic ha rd so n’ s su

pe rv ise d r e le a se se nte nc e : As to the issue of sente ncing disparities, th at issue is also raised somewhat in the Court ’s c on sid e ratio n o f a te rm of su pe rv ise d re le a se in t

his c a se , a nd the a pp lic a ble period, statutory

period, be ing f

rom five y ear s to life. The Court also does not be lieve that a supe rvised re l ea se term of g reater than te n y ear s would result in unwarr anted se ntencingdisparities in this case , the Court being m i n d fu l o f t he lac k of objec tion to that term by the Gover

nment, but it being the Court’s duty

to fashion a se n t ence inclusive of supe rvised re lease that would be sufficie nt but not – that would be suffic ient to comply with the purposes of Sec tion 3553. I n looking at this i ssue, the Court first would note that wh i l e M r. Reag an and Mr

. J ason Richar dson were g iven s upervised relea se t erms by their re spective se ntencing jud g e s o f t e n y ears , ot her c a se s c ite d to thi s c ourt by De fe nd ant’ s c ouns e l, s ome included super

vised rele ase te rms of ten y ear s up to li fe b as ed upon the f acts a nd circ umstances r eleva

nt to those cases.No. 08-6241

USA v. Ric hardson

- 10 - Next, in particular to this case, the Court has a lrea dy noted that Def

endant ha s not participated in a cu rr ent psy chosexual evaluation and that the extent of his deviant sexual behavior is unknown. Howeve r, as e stablished in the pre- sentenc e re port, the De fe n d an twa s ev al u at edi n1 9 9 0 , an d fr o m t h at ev al u at i o ni ti s es t ab l i s h edt h ro u gh the pre -sentenc e re port the De fenda nt had serious proble ms at an earlier ag e that had been le ft untreated. B a se d u po n th is e va lu a tio n a

nd the of fe ns e of c on vic tio n, sa fe ty

of the c omm

un ity is a strong consideration f or the sentenc e to inc lude a signific ant term of supe rvised rele ase in this case

. * * * [T] he Court will impose in thi s case a supervised rele ase te rm of life f or all the rea sons pr eviously discussed, and in pa rticular, g iven the lac k of trea tment and the n ee d t o p ro v i d e t h e D e f

e n d an twi t ht re at m en tb o t h– wi t ht re at m en tb o t hd

u ri n g a p e r io d o f in c ar c e r a ti o n a s w e ll a s d u r in g a p e r io d o f s u

p e r v is e d r e le a se, and ba sed upon the par

ticular off

ense c onduct her ein re lating to, among othe r thing s, the number of imag es, the offe r to tr ade or distribute, the ty pe and e x tent of imag es and other re levant conduc t. On this recor d, we do not cons i d er t h e dis trict court’ s supervised- rele ase de cision

su bs tanti ve ly

unre a so na

ble . “ Con g re ss i ns ist s th a t li fe tim e su pe rv isi on be avai lable to c ourt s in
sentenc ing se x u al o ff

en d ers: . . . 18 U.S.C . § 3583(k) e x pressly authorize[s] the cour

t to subject [R ich ar d s o n ] t o a li fe te rm of super vised rele ase be cause [hi s] crime constituted a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.” United States v. Kenne dy , 499 F.3d 547, 553 ( 6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). I n this reg ard, Congr ess provided f

or lifetime super

vision for sexual crimes bec ause [of th e ] lo n g - s ta

n d in g c o n c e r

n s o f F e d e r a l ju d g e s an d p r o s e c u to r s r e g ar d ing the inadequa cy

of t he ex isting supervision periods for sex offender s, particular ly for the perpe trators of c hild sex ual abuse crimes, whose criminal conduc t may ref lect deep- seate d aber

rant sex ual disorder s that are not likely to disappear

within a few y ear s of re lease from prison.No. 08-6241

USA v. Ric hardson

- 11 - H. R. Rep. No. 108-66, at 49-50 (2003) ( Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 2003 U.S.C.C.A.N. 683, 684. The SentencingGuidelines also re flec t this conce rn. Section 5D1.2 of the Guidelines provide s that for “a se x offe nse, howe ver, [lifetime] . . . supervised r elea se is rec ommended.” U .S.S.G. § 5D1.2 ( Po li c y St a te me n t)

. “ [R ]e a d in g 1 8 U

. S. C. § 3 5 8 3 ( k ) to g e th e r w it h th e p o li c y

s tate me n t i n§ 5 D 1

. 2 [] indicates that [] Congres s and the Sentencing Commi ssion intended to impose life terms of supervised r elea se on sex offende rs.” Kennedy , 4 9 9 F. 3 d at 5 5 3 (c i t i n g United States v. Allison , 447 F.3d 402, 405 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (interna l quotation marks omitted)). In light of the se conc erns, a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ind ivi du a lize d a sse ssm e nt of Ric ha rd so n’ s c on du c t, w e c on c lud e that a lif e tim e term of supe rvised re lease is substantively rea sonable. I V. For these re asons, we a ffirm the judg ment of the district cour t.