### In the



# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________________

No. 15

‐ 3522

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA

, Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

C HARLES R. S CHRODE

, Defendant

‐ Appellant

.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Central District of Illinois.

No. 14

‐ cr

‐ 30014

— Sue E. Myerscough

, Judge

.

____________________

A RGUED A PRIL 12, 2016

— D ECIDED O CTOBER 7, 2016

____________________

Before W OOD

, Chief Judge, and F LAUM and W ILLIAMS

, Cir

‐

cuit Judges

.

W ILLIAMS

, Circuit Judge

. Charles Schrode was convicted in

state court for predatory criminal assault of a four

‐ year

‐ old

family member. He later pled guilty in federal court to vide

‐ otaping assaults of the same child on two other dates, and re

‐ ceiving and possessing child pornography of other victims.2 No. 15

‐ 3522

He was sentenced to 630 months’ imprisonment for the fed

‐

eral offenses, some of which was to run consecutively to his

state sentence. On appeal, Schrode argues that none of his fed

‐

eral sentence should run consecutively to his state sentence.

But we affirm Schrode’s sentence. The district court did not

err in applying some of his federal sentence to run consecu

‐ tively to his state sentence, because it did not clearly err in

finding that his state offense was not relevant conduct for all

of his federal offenses.

Schrode also received a life term of supervised release,

which he now challenges, along with several of the conditions

of supervised release, which he argues improperly delegate

judicial power to the probation office. However, not only did

the district court adequately justify its reasons for imposing a

life term of supervision, Schrode also waived any challenges

to his conditions of supervised release by affirmatively with

‐ drawing his objections to those conditions at the sentencing

hearing. Nonetheless, we grant a limited remand to bring the

sentencing calculation for Schrode’s production offenses in

compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e).

I. BACKGROUND

A. Schrode’s Offenses

On April 7, 2013, Schrode committed predatory sexual as

‐

sault against Jane Doe, a four

‐ year

‐ old family member. He

pled guilty in state court in February 2014 and was sentenced

to 18 years’ imprisonment.

In June 2013, the FBI executed a search warrant of

Schrode’s home in Springfield Illinois. The search led to the

discovery that in May 2012, Schrode sent child pornography

from Illinois to a man in Michigan. In exchange, SchrodeNo. 15

‐ 3522 3

watched the Michigan man through streaming video and di

‐

rected him through web chats as he sexually assaulted his son.

The FBI discovered over 200 still images and four videos of

child pornography on Schrode’s computer in his Illinois

home. In June 2014, when Schrode was in state custody, his

wife discovered videos of him sexually assaulting Jane at the

home of a family friend in February and March 2013. She gave

the video footage to Jane’s father, who turned it over to the

FBI.

Schrode was indicted on four federal counts: first, for re

‐ ceiving child pornography of the Michigan victim in May

2012; second, for producing child pornography by videotap

‐ ing his sexual assault of Jane in February 2013; third, for pro

‐ ducing child pornography of Jane in March 2013; and fourth,

for possessing child pornography that the FBI discovered on

his computer in June 2013. He pled guilty to all counts.

B. Application of Sentencing Guidelines

At Schrode’s sentencing hearing, the district court

grouped Schrode’s offenses pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.1. The

first group included counts one and four (receipt and posses

‐

sion of child pornography), the second group contained the

single count of production of child pornography in February

2013, and the third group contained the single count of pro

‐

duction of child pornography in March 2013. Production of

child pornography is not a groupable offense. U.S.S.G.

§ 3D1.2(d). The district court explicitly addressed the presen

‐

tence report finding that Schrode’s state offense was relevant

conduct to the “instant offense.” The judge noted that she was

unsure the conduct which led to Schrode’s state sentence was

relevant to his federal offenses because “these were three sep

‐4 No. 15

‐ 3522

arate rapes and two of these rapes involved child pornogra

‐ phy production. Those are the two I’m dealing with. And they

were in a different period of time.” Ultimately the judge de

‐

termined that although she had “grave reservations that it is

relevant conduct,” she would treat the rape for which Schrode

was serving his state court sentence as relevant conduct for

his production counts (counts 2 and 3). The judge then calcu

‐

lated a sentence of 60 months for the receipt count, 363

months for each production count, and 240 months for the

possession count.

In addition to determining the prison term for each count,

the court had to decide whether the sentence for each group

would run concurrently or consecutively to the state prison

sentence by applying § 5G1.3 of the Guidelines. It concluded

that because the state prison sentence was for conduct rele

‐

vant to the production counts, Schrode’s time served for the

state sentence would be credited to those sentence terms,

which would also run concurrently with the state term of im

‐ prisonment. However, because the state sentence did not in

‐

volve conduct that was relevant to the offenses of receipt and

possession of pornography (Jane did not appear in any of the

pornography that formed the basis of those counts), those

sentences would run consecutively to the state court sentence.

In making its ruling, the district court stated it was relying on

both § 5G1.3(b) and (d) of the Guidelines. Schrode objected to

the court’s finding that the offense underlying the state sen

‐

tence was relevant conduct for some of the counts but not oth

‐

ers. Ultimately, the court imposed an aggregate sentence of

630 months’ imprisonment, with an adjusted sentence of 330

months for the production counts (starting with 663 months

and then crediting the 33 months already served on state sen

‐

tence), to run concurrently with Schrode’s state sentence andNo. 15

‐ 3522 5

with each other; 240 months for the possession count, to run

consecutively with the other federal counts and his state sen

‐

tence; and 60 months for the receipt count, to run consecu

‐ tively with the other federal counts and the state sentence.

C. Conditions of Supervised Release

After determining Schrode’s term of imprisonment, the

court imposed a life term of supervised release. As part of his

supervised release term, the court imposed four discretionary

conditions, the relevant portions of which are included below:

Condition 3: The defendant shall follow the in

‐

structions of the probation officer. He shall an

‐

swer truthfully the questions of Probation as

they relate to his conditions of supervision, sub

‐ ject to his right against self

‐ incrimination.

Condition 8: The defendant shall participate in

a sex offender treatment program as deemed

necessary by probation.

Condition 13: [The defendant] shall, at the direc

‐

tion of the U.S. Probation Office, participate in a

program for substance abuse treatment includ

‐ ing not more than six tests per month to deter

‐

mine whether he has used controlled or psycho

‐

active substances

... . He shall be subject to this

condition until such time as Probation deter

‐

mines that drug abuse treatment and drug test

‐ ing no longer assist him to avoid committing

further crimes.

Condition 14: The defendant shall participate in

psychiatric services and/or a program of mental6 No. 15

‐ 3522

health counseling/treatment as directed by Pro

‐

bation

... . He shall be subject to this condition

until such time as Probation determines that

mental health counseling/treatment no longer

assists him to avoid committing further crimes.

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, Schrode argues that the district court errone

‐ ously applied U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, violated 18 U.S.C. § 3583 when

it did not consider the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) in deciding to impose a life term of supervised re

‐

lease, and improperly delegated Schrode’s supervised release

conditions to the probation office. We review each of his ar

‐

guments in turn.

A. Judge Did Not Err in Application of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3

We review de novo whether a district court properly de

‐

termined the applicable provision of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3. United

States v. Conley

, 777 F.3d 910, 913 (7th Cir. 2015). Relevant con

‐

duct determinations are factual determinations, which may

only be reversed for clear error. United States v. Johnson

, 342

F.3d 731, 734 (7th Cir. 2003).

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b) reads in relevant part as follows:

(b) if

... a[n undischarged] term of imprison

‐

ment resulted from another offense that is rele

‐

vant conduct to the instant offense of conviction

under the provisions of (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of

1B1.3, the sentence for the instant offense shall

be imposed as follows:No. 15

‐ 3522 7

(1) the court shall adjust the sentence for any pe

‐

riod of imprisonment already served on the un

‐ discharged term of imprisonment if the court

determines that such period of imprisonment

will not be credited to the federal sentence by

the Bureau of Prisons; and

(2) the sentence for the instant offense shall be

imposed to run concurrently to the remainder

of the undischarged term of imprisonment.

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(d) directs that “in any other case involv

‐ ing an undischarged term of imprisonment, the sentence for

the instant offense may be imposed to run concurrently, par

‐ tially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior undischarged

term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable punishment for

the instant offense.”

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) defines relevant conduct as “all

acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled,

commanded, induced, procured, or willfully caused by the

defendant.” Section 1B1.3(a)(2) applies to grouped offenses,

and includes “all acts and omissions described in subdivi

‐

sions (1)(A) and (1)(B) that were part of the same course of

conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of convic

‐

tion.” Section 1B1.3(a)(3) additionally defines relevant con

‐

duct as “all harm that resulted from acts and omissions spec

‐

ified in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) above; and all harm that

was the object of such acts and omissions.”

Schrode’s argument is twofold: first, that the district court

should have found his state offense to be relevant conduct for

all of his federal offenses, and second, that the district court

erred in applying both § 5G1.3(b) and (d) when determining8 No. 15

‐ 3522

whether his state term of imprisonment would run concur

‐ rently or consecutively to his federal sentence.

1. No Clear Error in Relevant Conduct Findings

It is the defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the con

‐

duct which led to his state sentences is relevant conduct to his

federal offense. United States v. Nania

, 724 F.3d 824, 833 (7th

Cir. 2013). In Nania

, we held that sufficient factual overlap

must exist between the state and federal offenses for the state

conduct to be considered relevant to the federal offense under

§ 5G1.3(b). Id

. at 830. We also noted that § 5G1.3 is designed

to discourage sentences that punish defendants twice for the

same conduct. Id. at 829. Schrode advances two arguments in

support of finding that the state offense counts as relevant

conduct for the receipt and possession counts.

First, Schrode argues that under the grouping rules, his of

‐

fense levels for the production counts (which he argues were

partially informed by his state conduct) contributed to an in

‐

crease in his combined adjusted offense level by two points.

So, he argues, his state conduct was relevant to his sentencing

calculation for possession and receipt of child pornography.

But as Schrode himself points out, § 5G1.3(b) no longer in

‐

cludes a requirement that the conduct at issue be a basis for

increasing a defendant’s offense level. United States v. Orozco

‐

Sanchez

, 814 F.3d 844, 850 (7th Cir. 2016). The central analysis

is now only whether or not the conduct underlying the state

sentence meets the definition of “relevant conduct” under

§ 1B1.3. Id

. And Schrode fails to explain why his possession

and receipt counts, in a separate group from his production

counts, meet that definition. We disagree that when an undis

‐ charged sentence indirectly affects the sentence for an instant

offense by way of the grouping rules, but was not part of theNo. 15

‐ 3522 9

same course of conduct as the federal offense, we must con

‐

sider the state offense to be relevant conduct to unrelated of

‐

fenses under § 1B1.3.

Second, Schrode argues that his state court offense is rele

‐

vant conduct to all of his federal offenses because his com

‐

bined adjusted offense level for all four federal counts was

subjected to an enhancement under § 4B1.5(b)(1), which adds

five levels when the defendant’s “instant offense is a covered

sex crime

... and the defendant engaged in a pattern of activ

‐ ity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” But as the govern

‐

ment points out, “pattern of activity” under § 4B1.5(b)(1) is

met “if on at least two separate occasions, the defendant en

‐ gaged in prohibited contact with a minor.” App. Note 4(B)(i).

Since Schrode met this requirement by engaging in the two

production offenses that were the source of his federal sen

‐

tence, it is far from clear that his state offense was considered

part of the pattern. Moreover, a “pattern of activity” finding

should not be equated with “relevant conduct” under

§ 1B1.3(b), which requires not just that the defendant commit

‐

ted certain types of offenses two times or more, but that the

two offenses at issue were part of the same course of conduct.

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). Certainly the fact that a defendant com

‐

mits a certain type of offense on multiple occasions does not

inevitably mean that each separate offense is part of the same

course of conduct.

Schrode needed to provide a factual basis for finding that

his sexual abuse of Jane was part of the same course of con

‐

duct as his receipt and possession of child pornography of

other victims, such that failing to discount his state sentence

would subject him to double punishment for the same con

‐

duct. See Nania

, 724 F.3d at 829. But Schrode’s federal offenses10 No. 15

‐ 3522

for receipt and possession of child pornography did not in

‐

volve images or abuse of Jane and occurred almost a year be

‐

fore the conduct which led to Schrode’s state conviction. It is

clear from the record that the district court accepted (albeit

reluctantly) that Schrode’s state sentence resulted from con

‐

duct relevant to his production counts because the same vic

‐

tim was involved. By contrast, the same victim was not in

‐

volved in the receipt and possession counts. The judge did not

clearly err in finding that offenses that did not have any vic

‐

tims in common were not part of the same course of conduct,

and therefore not relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(b). Schrode

has not provided a persuasive reason to disturb this finding

under clear error review.

2. No Error in Applying Two Subsections of

U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3

Schrode also argues that the district court was not permit

‐

ted to apply § 5G1.3(d) to his receipt and possession counts

once it determined that § 5G1.3(b) applied to his production

counts. In other words, the court was required to take an all

‐

or

‐ nothing approach with the separate counts once it deter

‐

mined that the state court sentence entailed relevant conduct

for at least some of his federal offenses. We do not find this

reasoning persuasive, for a few reasons.

We start by looking at § 5G1.3(b) itself. Application Note

2(b) notes that § 5G1.3(b) does not apply in cases where the

prior offense was not relevant conduct to the “instant of

‐

fense.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), App. Note 2(b). So if the judge ex

‐ plicitly found the state court sentence for Jane’s rape was not

relevant to the receipt and possession offenses, then it was

barred from applying subsection (b). Next, we look at the

Guidelines definition of “instant offense.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1,No. 15

‐ 3522 11

application note 1H. “Offense” means the offense of convic

‐

tion and all relevant conduct under 1B1.3, unless a different

meaning is specified or is otherwise clear from the context. Id

. “Instant” is used in connection with “offense” to distinguish

the violation for which the defendant is being sentenced from

a prior or subsequent offense or from an offense before an

‐

other court. Id

.

This is a situation where the definition of “offense” must

be modified based on the context. “Offense” as it appears un

‐

der § 5G1.3 cannot mean the offense of conviction plus rele

‐

vant conduct, because the district court must separately de

‐

termine if conduct is relevant in order to apply the appropri

‐

ate subsection. So a better reading of “offense” in this context

is simply the offense of conviction. Because there are four of

‐

fenses of conviction that each resulted in a separate term of

imprisonment, it makes sense that each offense must be run

through § 5G1.3’s analysis separately to determine how the

undischarged state sentence applies to the federal term of im

‐ prisonment. Otherwise, § 5G1.3(b)’s requirement that the rel

‐

evant conduct analysis apply to the “instant offense” would

not be met. Schrode argues that the § 5G1.3 requires every of

‐

fense of conviction to be subject to the same subsection, but

he does not provide any authority for this position. As a pol

‐ icy matter, to adopt his view would prevent courts from im

‐ posing a fair punishment on defendants for conduct wholly

apart from the conduct that led to a prior sentence, simply be

‐

cause they happened to be prosecuted for multiple unrelated

federal offenses at once. So we see no error in the district court

applying § 5G1.3(b) to the production counts, and § 5G1.3(d)

to the possession and receipt counts.12 No. 15

‐ 3522

3. Adequate Reasons Provided for Imposing Con

‐

secutive Sentence for Counts 1 and 4

Finally, Schrode argues that the district court failed to ap

‐ ply Note 4(A) under § 5G1.3, which requires considering the

§ 3553(a) factors as well as other listed factors to achieve a rea

‐

sonable incremental punishment. U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, App. Note

4(A). We are not persuaded. The district court noted the

amount of time already served on Schrode’s state sentence,

the need to protect the public, the differences between the

state offense and the federal offenses, the seriousness of

Schrode’s federal offenses, the continuation of Schrode’s un

‐

lawful behavior after he was contacted by the FBI, and the

need to deter future offenses. All of these factors led the court

to believe that imposing a sentence which significantly added

to Schrode’s state sentence was an appropriate punishment.

The court more than adequately stated its reasons for apply

‐ ing some portions of his federal sentence consecutively to his

state sentence.

B. District Court Complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c)

Schrode next attacks his lifetime term of supervision. He

argues that the district court violated 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c),

which requires that a district court determine the length of a

supervised release term based on several factors listed under

§ 3553(a). United States v. Thompson

, 777 F.3d 368, 375 (7th Cir.

2015). We review whether a district court adequately ex

‐ plained a chosen sentence de novo. United States v. Armour

,

804 F.3d 859, 867 (7th Cir. 2015). Supervised release is consid

‐

ered part of a given sentence for purposes of our review.

Thompson, 777 F.3d at 373.No. 15

‐ 3522 13

Schrode urges us to overrule our precedent that “a district

court need only provide one overarching explanation and jus

‐

tification—tethered, of course, to the § 3553(a) factors—for

why it thinks a criminal sentence comprised of both terms of

imprisonment and supervised release is appropriate.” United

States v. Bloch, 825 F.3d 862, 870 (7th Cir. 2016); see also United

States v. Kappes

, 782 F.3d 828, 847 (7th Cir. 2015); Armour

, 804

F.3d at 867–68. We decline to do so. The district court pro

‐

vided a number of reasons for imposing its sentence, which

encompassed both Schrode’s prison term and term of super

‐

vised release. The judge stated on the record that she took all

of the relevant § 3553(a) factors into consideration. She

acknowledged Schrode’s lack of criminal history, his coopera

‐

tion in the case, his difficult childhood, and his low intellec

‐

tual capacity. She stated that the sentence would help Schrode

transition back into society, ensure he did not resume illegal

activities, protect the public, create deterrence for similar of

‐

fenses, and provide Schrode with ongoing treatment and sup

‐

port. These reasons were distinct from the judge’s considera

‐

tion of the need for just punishment, which is only appropri

‐

ate to consider in determining a term of imprisonment. 18

U.S.C. § 3583(c) (excluding from consideration factors under

§ 3553(a)(2)(A)); Kappes

, 782 F.3d at 836. The district court

should be commended for providing its reasons for each con

‐

dition of supervised release, and asking Schrode’s counsel

both at the outset of the hearing and after its pronouncement

of the conditions if it had addressed all relevant issues to

Schrode’s satisfaction.

Schrode argues that reviewing the sentence as a whole in

‐

stead of requiring a district court to articulate separate rea

‐

sons for a prison term and term of supervised release renders

18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) redundant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). But “no14 No. 15

‐ 3522

part of § 3553(c) requires the district court to bifurcate its con

‐

sideration, discussion, and evaluation of the § 3553(a) sen

‐ tencing factors, which also happens to include all the factors

a district court must consider in imposing a term of super

‐

vised release.” Bloch

, 825 F.3d at 869. The complementary pur

‐

poses of imprisonment and supervised release require a court

to consider many § 3553(a) factors for both, and this require

‐

ment is codified by § 3583(c). This does not cause redundancy,

but rather ensures that all components of a defendant’s sen

‐

tence account for the individual characteristics of his case.

C. Non

‐ Delegation Challenge to Supervised Release

Conditions Waived

Schrode next argues that several of his conditions of su

‐ pervised release violated the non

‐ delegation clause of the

Constitution. Specifically, he points to four conditions which

authorized varying levels of discretion by the U.S. Probation

Office. We review constitutional challenges to sentences de

novo, United States v. Tichenor

, 683 F.3d 358, 362 (7th Cir. 2012),

but we review arguments that were forfeited before the dis

‐

trict court for plain error, United States v. Hudson

, 627 F.3d 309,

312 (7th Cir. 2010). In contrast to forfeited issues, valid waiver

of an issue forecloses any review because there is no error to

correct on appeal. See United States v. Webster

, 775 F.3d 897, 902

(7th Cir. 2015).

Article III judges lack constitutional authority to delegate

judicial power to non

‐ Article III judges. Plaut v. Spendthrift

Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 218 (2015). So Article III of the Consti

‐

tution would prevent a judge from delegating the duty of im

‐ posing a defendant’s punishment to a probation officer. See,

e.g.

, United States v. Nash

, 483 F.3d 1302, 1306 (11th Cir. 2006)No. 15

‐ 3522 15

(plain error to impose condition that defendant “shall” partic

‐ ipate in mental health counseling “as deemed necessary” by

probation officer because condition would turn on judgment

of officer, not court); United States v. Pruden

, 398 F.3d 241, 251

(3d Cir. 2005) (plain error to impose condition that “defendant

shall participate” in a mental health treatment program “at

the discretion of the probation officer”). In addition, “a

plainly erroneous condition of supervised release will inevi

‐ tably affect substantial rights, as a defendant who fails to meet

that condition will be subject to further incarceration. Pruden

,

398 F.3d at 251. While we have not squarely confronted the

constitutional underpinnings of this principle in the sentenc

‐ ing context, we have held that the delegation of a serious sen

‐ tencing decision from “a judicial officer to another deprives

the defendant of a substantial right.” United States v. Moham

‐

mad, 53 F.3d 1426, 1439 (7th Cir. 1995). Notwithstanding these

rules, probation officers have broad authority to manage and

supervise probationers. United States v. Mike

, 632 F.3d 686, 695

(10th Cir. 2011). To determine if a condition of supervised re

‐

lease violates the non

‐ delegation rule, courts addressing the

question have distinguished between those delegations that

“merely task the probation officer with performing ministe

‐

rial acts or support services related to the punishment im

‐ posed, and those that allow the officer to decide the nature or

extent of the defendant’s punishment.” Id

.

On appeal, Schrode challenges the conditions of super

‐

vised release which (1) mandated that he follow the instruc

‐

tions of the probation officer; (2) required him to participate

in a sex offender treatment program as deemed necessary by

probation; (3) stated that he must participate in a substance

abuse program at the direction of the probation office until it

determined that drug abuse treatment and testing no longer16 No. 15

‐ 3522

helped him to avoid committing further crimes; and (4) dic

‐

tated he must participate in various mental health treatments

as directed by probation until it determined that such treat

‐

ment no longer helped him to avoid committing further

crimes. He argues each of these conditions improperly dele

‐ gated judicial power to determine his sentence to a law en

‐

forcement agency in violation of Article III.

The government responds that Schrode waived this issue

at the sentencing hearing by affirmatively stating that he had

no objections to the conditions he now challenges on consti

‐

tutional grounds. In the context of supervised release, a de

‐

fendant’s response to a general inquiry at the end of sentenc

‐ ing, unaccompanied by either (1) an explicit approval of the

condition or (2) a strategic reason to forgo the argument at the

hearing, does not constitute waiver. United States v. Hinds

, 770

F.3d 658, 665 (7th Cir. 2014). When a defendant affirmatively

states “I do not object” or “I withdraw my objection” to a spe

‐

cific issue, waiver applies. Webster

, 775 F.3d at 902 (citing

United States v. Locke, 759 F.3d 760, 763 (7th Cir. 2014)); cf.

United States v. Farmer

, 755 F.3d 849, 853 (7th Cir. 2014) (find

‐ ing no waiver in part because defendant did not affirmatively

say “no objection” to condition of supervised release chal

‐ lenged on appeal).

We agree with the government that waiver applies here.

The district court explicitly asked Schrode’s counsel at his sen

‐ tencing hearing if he was withdrawing his objections to each

of the conditions of supervised release he now challenges,

identifying them individually by their paragraph number in

the presentence report. He confirmed his withdrawal of ob

‐ jections to all of the conditions he now challenges, contingent

on the court’s acceptance of conditions that were agreed to byNo. 15

‐ 3522 17

the parties. He also maintained his objection to other condi

‐

tions, which are not the subject of this appeal.

Schrode’s attempt to analogize the situation to the defend

‐

ants’ sentences in Thompson

, 777 F.3d at 368, is misplaced. In

those sentences, there was no affirmative withdrawal of ob

‐ jections. Moreover, the presentence report made no recom

‐

mendation for supervised release, and the district court failed

to provide any explanation for why it imposed each condi

‐

tion. Id. at 375, 380. By contrast, here all four conditions were

submitted to Schrode prior to the sentencing hearing, with

reasons set forth for each condition in the presentence report.

At the hearing itself, the district court articulated clear rea

‐

sons, tethered to the factors listed under § 3553(a) and con

‐

sistent with § 3583(d), for each condition that Schrode now

constitutionally challenges for the first time on appeal. The

salient circumstances in Thompson

, that the defendants lacked

sufficient notice or explanation by the district court to register

objections to the conditions at the hearing, do not apply here.

See also United States v. Lewis

, 823 F.3d 1075, 1082 (7th Cir. 2016)

(finding waiver where “[t]here were no surprises in the sen

‐ tencing hearing related to supervised release” and the de

‐

fendant did not object).

Also, the conditions were not so vague that Schrode could

not determine what restrictions were actually being imposed

and whether or not any of them were so onerous that he

should object. Cf. United States v. Hill

, 818 F.3d 342, 345 (7th

Cir. 2016). The issue he now raises is quite clear. The district

court should not have given the probation officer so much

power in determining whether or not the challenged condi

‐

tions should apply. He cannot refashion the withdrawal of his

objections as forfeiture, and not waiver, when he had ample18 No. 15

‐ 3522

notice of the conditions to be imposed, a clear understanding

of the meaning of each condition, multiple opportunities to

object, was explicitly asked by the court whether he chose to

withdraw his objections or preserve them, and chose to pre

‐

serve some objections and withdraw the ones he now appeals.

However, we note that we find particularly troubling the

imposition of a condition of sex offender treatment “as

deemed necessary by probation,” which unlike the other con

‐

ditions, delegates to the probation office not merely the ad

‐

ministration of an imposed condition, but the underlying

judgment of whether the condition will be imposed at all. Un

‐ fortunately, Schrode’s affirmative withdrawal of any objection

to the condition forecloses our review of this issue. Webster

,

775 F.3d at 902.

D. Limited Remand for Calculation Error

Finally, we address a calculation error. The maximum sen

‐

tence for production offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e) is 360

months. The district court, in what appears to have been an

inadvertent error, applied Schrode’s state court sentence to an

aggregate sentence of 663 months for the production offenses.

We remand only this issue to the district court to ensure com

‐ pliance with § 2251(e).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we A FFIRM Schrode’s sentence,

with the exception of a limited remand consistent with Sec

‐

tion II.D of this opinion.