## 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. 08

- 2087 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R AL PH W. A NGLE , D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 2:98 CR37

—Jam es T. Moo dy, Judge .
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 14, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 15, 2010

Befo re C OFFEY, E VANS, an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . W IL LI A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h i s i s th e f o u r th t i me Ra l phAng l e a pp e a l s the se nt e nc e s i mpo s e d fo r h i s c hi l dpornog ra phy cri m es. T hree ti m es w e hav e r em anded f o r r esente nc i ngb ec au se o fo urunc er ta i nty abo utthe re l i abi l i ty ofinfo rm ati on use d to j usti fy a to tal p er iod of i m pr i so nm en t we ll abo ve the r an g e es tabl i sh ed bythe sente nci ng guidel i nes. In ourl astr em and w e a l so dir ecte d th e di str i ct c ourtto expl ai n w hy a “patte rn o f2 N o. 08

- 2087 ab us e” upwar d a dj us tmentd id not ful l y a cc o untf o r the uncharge d conduct used to j usti fy the st i ffpunis h m ent. Both ofthes e c on c erns have now been s ati sfi ed. Final l y, th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otab u se its d isc re tio n in th war tingAngl e fr o m g aini ngperso na l a cc es s to the I nter net duri ng the per i od ofhi s s up er vi sed r el eas e.

I . B AC KGR OUND A ng le w as f o und gui l tyi n 1 99 8 o fpo ss es sing chi l d pornog ra phy, at tem pti ng to r ecei ve c h i l d pornog

ra p h y, a n d a t t em p tin g t o e n tic e a ch ild to en ga ge in pr ohib i t e d s e xu a l a c t i v i t y, i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. §§ 2 25 2( a) ( 4) ( B) , 2 25 2( a) ( 2) , a nd 24 22(b)

. H e a l re ady had a 1 9 7 7c o nv i c t i o n f o r s o do my ( i nv o l v i nga 1 5

- y e a r - o l d) an d a 19 8 7 c onv iction forchild m olestation. A t A ng le’ s i ni ti alse ntenci ng hea ring i n Se ptem ber19 99, the dis tr i ct c ou rtim p os ed a se n te n c e o f 32 5 m on th s in p ris on , a si g n i fi c a n t i n c r e a s e ab o v e th e r a n g e o f 1 5 1 t o 1 8 8 mont hs ca l cul ated b y the c o ur t unde r the 1 99 8 ve r si o n o fthe se nt en cingg ui del i ne s. That fi r sts en te nc i nghe ar i ng pr e da t e d U nited S ta tes v. B o o k er, 54 3 U. S
. 2 20 ( 20 05 ) , s o the j ud ge’ s fre edom to exce ed the gui del i nes range was st i l l cabine d by m an dat o r y r ul es o n “de par tu r es. ” The j ud ge concl ud ed th at A ngl e’ s s odom y c onvi cti on, wh i ch w as too old to cou nt i n h is cri m inal h is t o ry score, w arra nted an upw ar d dep ar ture u nd erU
. S. S. G. § 4 A 1. 3, wh i ch encour age s s entencing co urts to ex ceed the gui del i nes im p risonm en t range i f th e d efend an t’s crim inal history c at eg or y s u b st an tia lly u n d er st at es th e s er iou sn e ss of h is c r i mi n a l h i s t o r y o r th e l i k e l i h o o d o fr e c i d i v i s m. WeN o. 08

- 2087 3

or dered r ese ntenci ng be cause the di str i ct c ourthad not fol l o wed the s pec i fi c st eps tha t, unde r c i r cui t pr ec ede nt i nter preting § 4 A 1.3 , were ess enti alto depart base d on th at gu id elin e. U nited Sta tes v. A ng le (A ng le I) , 23 4 F
. 3d 326, 344 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. W e a l so concl ud ed that the dis tri ct cour t m i gh t h ave m i scal cul ate d the guidel i nes r ange a nd di r e c t e d fur the r s t ud y o f tha t qu e s t i o n on r em a nd

. Id

. at34 5. T he district co u r t res en ten ced A ng le in 20 01. Th e cou rt r ec al cul at ed a l o werg ui del i ne s r an g e o f9 7 to 1 21 months b u t s till im p os ed th e s am e a m ou n t o f im p ris on m en t. In ex p lai nin g i ts up w a rd de p artu re

— a greater d ep artu re th an before

— the c ourtag ai n ci ted A ngl e’ s uncounted so d om y c on vic tio n, bu t t h is t im e t h e c ou rta lso ex p licit ly reli ed on ad d iti ona l inform ation. For ex am p le, t he cou rt note d tha tAng l e h a d b r a g g e d ab o uta s e xu a l e nc o un ter w ith a Geor gi a bo y in an o nl i ne chatwith a n i nd i vi du al A ngl e thought was a 13- yea r- ol d b oy. A nd the cour t ci ted accusat i ons th at A ngl e had tr avel ed to M exi co to have sex w i th chi l dren; thathe ha d com m i tte d acts ofse xual ab u se i n v o l vin g h is n iec e, h is n ep h ew , an d h is gir lf ri e nd ’ s da ught e r ; a nd tha th e p r e y e d o n c hi l dr e n he m et at a gym in Ind i ana. The go ver nm ent intro du ced a l ett er from the ne phe w’s wi fe ac cus i ngAngl e o fmol es ting seve ra l o fhi s y oung r el ati ves . F i nal l y, a postali nspector te st ified t h at am at eu r vid eo ta p es rec ov er ed from A n gle w hen he r eente re d the Un i ted States fro m M exi co d ep icted boys p erform ing sex acts. Bu t the dis t r ict court di d no t ex pl ain why i t cr edi te d t he se ac co unt s o funcharg ed cr i m i nalact s, so we again re m anded f or re sente nci ng and dir ecte d that the cas e be r eas si gned to4 N o. 08

- 2087 a d iffer en t jud ge . U nited Sta tes v. A ng le ( A ngle II) , 31 5 F
. 3d 810 (7th Cir. 2003). A t the thi rd s en tencing hear i ng i n 200 5, the new j ud ge deci ded thatA ngl e’s conduct w ar ra nted 300 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, 25 few erthan bef or e, but stil l w ell abov e the guidel i nes r ange. The d i str i ct c ourtto ok i nto ac co untthe e vi den ce i nt r o duced att r i ala nd dur i ngthe fi rs t tw o sente nci ng hea rings, and al so a l l owed the gov er n m en t to in tr od u c e ne w te st im on y from on e p re vio u sly unavai l abl e witness, a w om an wh o sai d th at A n gle had m ol est ed her as a chi l d when he w as datin g h er m othe r an d l ivi ng w ith th em i n C ali fornia. Th e d is trict court ci ted A n gl e’ s l ong hi sto ryo fse xual abuse ofchi l dren to j usti fy the subst anti ali ncre ase abo ve the guidel i nes r an g e, but th e j udg e o ve r l o o k ed o ur i ns truct i o n to expla i n w hy he deem ed re l i abl e the ev i dence ofuncharg ed se xu a l ab us e . W e thu s s e nt the c a s e b a c k a g a i n f or r es en te nc i ng, a nd thi s ti m e we al so di r ec te d the c o u r t t o exp lai n w hy i ts ap p li cationof a 5-l evel up w ard adj ustm ent forenga gi ng i n a “ pattern of acti vi ty in vo lvin g t h e s ex u al a b u s e or ex p loit at ion of a m in or ,” seeU
. S. S. G. § 2 G2. 2( b) ( 4) ( 1998 ) ( curr ent v er si on a t U
. S. S
. G. § 2 G2. 2(b) ( 5) ) , di d no t ful l y a cc o untf o r the uncharge d conduct that contr ibuted to the abov era n ge p er iod of in c ar c er at ion
. U nite d State s v. A n g le ( A ngle III), 216 F. A p p ’x 557 (7th Cir. 2007). I n late 2007, w ellafter Bookerwas deci ded , the dist ri ct cour t co nd uc te d ye t a notherse ntenci ng hea ring, wh i ch i s the subj ec to fthi s a pp e a l

. T he c o ur tr e v i e we d a n up dated p resente nce r epor t, ev al uated the evi dence pre-N o. 08

- 2087 5 sente d a t tr i al and duri ng the pri or sente n c in g h ear i ngs, a n d h e a r d l i v e t e s t i mo n y fr o m A n g l e ’ s n i e c e , h i s t wo nephew s, an em plo yee fro m the I nd i ana gym , a gym patron a n d herso n, the Georg i a bo y, and the postal i nspector
. A s we had dir ecte d, the c ourtm ade extensi ve fi nd i ngs c oncerni ng the r el i abi l i ty ofthe al l ega ti ons of m ol est ati on, and Angle does not conte st thos e find i ngs on a pp eal

. A pp el l ant’ s Br. at13
. T h e courtst i l l appli ed the 1 998 gui delin es bu t a l so too k no te ofam endm ents prom ulg ate d si nce An gl e’ s fi rs t s entencing i n 199 9; A ngl e’ s i m priso nm ent r ange und erthe 1998 ve rs i on o f the guidel i nes was 97to 121 m onths but would have been 360 m onths to l i fe under the 2 006 ver si on then i n effect. I n aga i n set tl i ng o n a tot al per i od ofi m pri sonm ent o f 300 m ont hs , the d istri ct cou rt exp lai ne d that the “p a t t ern ofabuse ” upw ar d ad j ustm ent under § 2 G2. 2( b) ( 4) did notfully a ccount f orA ngl e’ s extensi ve hi sto ryo f sexualm i sco nd uct i nvol vi ng chi l dren. The court re aso ned th atthe “ pat te r n o fa bu se” a dj us tmentwoul d a ppl y a ny ti m e a defendant enga ged i n at l ea st t w o i nstance s o f sexualabu se o r explo i tat i on, and ye t An gl e, wh ose pattern ofm i sco nd uct had run vi rtual l y uncheck ed f or 20 yea rs , w as one ofthe w or st chi l d predator s the j ud ge had seen i n hi s 2 5 y ear s o n the bench. The cour t obser ved that A ngle h ad abused a posi ti on o ftr ust a s a r el ati ve to thre e o fthe abused chi l dren, and had est abl i shed a m odus o pe r andio fi ng r at i at i nghi m se l fwi ths i ng l e m o th er s i n o r dert o abus e th ei r c hi l dr en . M o r eo ve r, the c o ur t ex p lain ed , A n gle h ad p ro d u c ed ch ild p or n og ra p h y in ad d itio n to co n su m in g i t . Th e c ou rtn ot ed a se rie s o f e-m ails A ngl e had se nt to wh at he tho ught was a dist ributor6 N o. 08

- 2087 ofchi l d pornog ra phy i n C olora do ( but was actual l y a g o ve r nm en t fr o nt )
. The se emai l s es tabl i sh ed th at d ur i ng a tr i p t o M ex i co , Angl e he l ped cr ea te at le as t o ne se xua l l y e xpl i ci t vi deo o fc hi ldren

. I n o ne e - m ai l s en t be f o r e hi s depa r tu r e, Angl e bo as te d th at he was t r av el i ng to M ex i co t o “ pl aywi thb o y s” a nd ha d the m “line d up al re ady and w ai ting f oro ur a rr i val

. ” Thi s e xtensi ve evi dence, the cour t co nc lud e d, s i gna l e d that An gl e’ s cr i m es wo u l d q u i c k l y r e s u me u p o n h i s r e l e a s e fr o m p r i s o n . He showed no re m or se, a nd despi te tel l i ng the j ud ge that he n o w wa nt e d t o p a r t i c i pa t e i n s e x- o ffe nd e r t r e a t men t, A n gle h ad p as se d u p op p or tu n itie s t o d o s o a fte r h is two pr i o r c o nv i ct i o ns f o r s ex o ffen se s ag ains t ch i l dr en .
II. A N A L Y S IS A . Ab ove - r ange Sente nce W arr ante d A s w e note d, i n thi s appeal A ngl e does not dispute th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t ade qua te l y e xpl aine d why i t f o und the evi dence of uncharge d a cts of sexual abuse to be re l iab le. T h at p ro n g of o u r las t re m an d is sa tis fied . A n gle co nt en ds, ho w ever, tha t th e co ur t st i l l di d no t j us ti fy the ne ed f o r a n abo ve - r an g e se nt en ce a fte r a ppl y i ngthe “p atte rn o f abu se” u p w ard adj us tm en t un d er § 2G 2.2(b)(4). That gui de li ne m andates a 5

- l eve l i ncre ase i n offense l eve l “[ i ] fthe defe nd ant e ngage d i n a patter n ofact i vi ty in vo lvin g th e sex u al ab u se or ex p loit at ion o fa m in or .” U. S
. S
. G. § 2 G2
. 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) ( 1 9 9 8 ) ( c ur r e ntv e r s i o n a tU. S
. S
. G. § 2 G 2.2 (b )(5) ); see U nited Sta tes v. O sbo rne, 551 F. 3d 718, 72 1- 22 (7th C ir. 2009). A s d iscus sed above, t h e d istri ct cou rt gave se ver al re aso ns f orco ncl ud i ng tha t a n abo ve- ra ngeN o. 08

- 2087 7 sente nce was w ar ra nted in a dd i ti on t o the “ pattern of abuse” adj ustm ent: A ngl e had an unbrok en, 20

- yea r pattern ofabusive condu ct; he e xploi ted posi ti ons of tr ust to get at hi s young vi cti m s; he cre at e d as w el l as consum ed chi l d p or nogr aphy; he s how ed no r em or se; and he w oul d have f aced a signi fi cantl y hi gheri m pri sonm ent r ange i fse ntenced under the cur re nt ve rs i on o f th e guid eli ne s. A ng le insists th at th e fi rst four reason s are fu l l y e m b o d i e d i n § 2 G 2
. 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) , a n d th a t th e l a s ti s i mpropergi ven the l i m i ted sc ope o fo ur re m an d. W e r ej ect both conte nti ons. T he district co u r t first exp lai ne d that A ng le’ s p attern o fabus e was a ty pi ca l

. M an y o fthe r epo r te d de ci si o ns analyzi ng the “patt er n ofabuse ” a dj ustm ent invol ve a narr ower ra nge of abuse than w as prese nt i n this case

. See, e.g., U nited Sta tes v. A lva rez, 478 F. 3d 864, 865- 66 (8th C ir. 20 07 ) ( upho l di nga ppl i ca ti o n o fthe a dj us tment w here defendant r epeate dlyabuse d one v i cti m ) ; U n ited Sta tes v. G un derso n, 345 F. 3d 47 1, 47 2- 73 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( up hol ding appli cati on o fthe adj ustm en t w here defend a n t a bu sed tw o victim s); U nited Sta tes v. Lo va a s, 241 F. 3d 900, 90 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( up hol ding appli cati on o f th e adj us tm en t w he re de fend an t abu sed three victim s). I nd eed, the com m entar y t o § 2 G2. 2 e ncoura ges di str i ct co ur ts t o i m po se a te rm of i m pr i so nm en t o ut si de th e gui del i nes r ange i fan upw ar d adj ustm ent under subsecti on (b) ( 4) i s inadequ ate to acc ou n t forthe ser i ousness o fthe s e xu a l ab us e o r the e xp l o i t a t i o n i nv o l v e d. U. S
. S
. G. § 2G 2
. 2 c mt. n . 2 ( 1 9 9 8 ) ( c ur r e ntv e r s i o n a tU. S
. S
. G. § 2 G 2.2 cm t. n .7); U nited Sta tes v . G r i f fith, 344 F. 3d 714, 719 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. W e ca nnot di sag re e wit h t he di str i ct8 N o. 08

- 2087

cour t that An gl e’ s pro lon ge d and exte nsi ve pattern of abusi ve conduct pl aced hi m squar el y withi n the gr ou p of offenders conte m pla ted bythe com m entar y. Se cond, the dist ri ct c ourtthought i t s i gni fi cant that Ang l e ’ s p a t t e r n o fab u s e i n v o l v e d e x p l o i t i n gp o s i t i o ns oftr ust. A ngl e o pp ose s thi s re as oning on t w o fro nts, th o ug h h i s i ni ti alo bj ec ti o n i s fr i vo l ou s. The g o ve r nmen t ’ s e v i de nc e , h e s a y s , do e s n o ts ho w tha th e h e l d a po si ti o n o f tru sti nv o l vinghi s vi ct i m s. Buts en te nc i ng j udg es a r e no t bo und b y the s tringente vi den ti ar y s ta ndards appli cabl e a t t ri al ; r ather, the evi dence need onl y b e re liab le. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Coope r, 5 9 1 F. 3d 582, 591 (7th Cir. 2 01 0); U nited Sta tes v. Joh nso n, 489 F.3d 794, 796 (7th Cir. 2007 )
. A t An gl e’ s l ate st sent en c ing hea ring, the j ud ge f o und tha t Angl e ha d abus ed hi s ni ec e an d ne phe ws, a nd h ad ta rg et ed sin gle m ot h er s w h os e t ru st h e c ou ld engenderi n or der t o abuse t h eirchi l dren. These f actual fin d in gs are r e v iew ed on ly for cle ar err or , U nited Sta tes v. D avis , 44 2 F
. 3d 1003 , 10 08- 09 ( 7th C i r. 2006) , and though Angl e di sa g r ee s wi ththe infer en ce dr awn b y the dist ri ct c ourtfro m the evid en c e, he ha s no t i denti fi ed any e rr ori n the cour t’ s a sse ssm ent o fthatev i dence. A ngl e’ s o ther o bj ecti on t o re cei vi ng an abov e- ra nge sente nce in partf orexpl oi ti ng posi ti ons oftr ust r est s o n ourde ci si o n in U nited Sta tes v. M cC a ffrey, 4 3 7 F. 3d 684 ( 7th Ci r . 2 006 )
. Tha t ch i l d- po r no g r aph y pr o se cut i o n invo lved a pr i es t who was s en te nc ed to 2 40 months

— 60 les s t h an A n gle

— afte r ab us i ng m o r e th an1 00 c hi l dr en, m osto f t h em fro m hi s co ngre gat i ons. 43 7 F
. 3d at 686- 88. An g l e r e a d s th a to u t c o me a s c o n fi r ma t i o n th a th i s o wnN o. 08

- 2087 9 si tuati on does notwarra n t b oth a “ pattern ofabuse ” upwar d a dj us tmenta nd a n inc r ea se abo ve the r esu lti ng gu idelines ran g e. B ut A ng le did n ot read our M cC a ffrey opi ni on ca re fully. In that case th e g ove rnm ent s uccess full y argue d that the d efend an t’s pat tern of abu se w a rra nt ed not onl y the 5- l eve li ncre ase under the “patt er n of abuse” adj ustm ent, but al so a ( pre- B o o k er ) up w ard de p artu re eq u iva len t t o a n ot h er 5 o f f e n se lev els

. Id

. at68 6- 87. W e r ej ec te d the de fen dan t’ s “do ubl e count i ng ” ar g um en t a nd u pheld b o th i nc r e a s e s , wh i c h e ffe c t i v e l y y i e l de d a gu id elin es im p ris on m en t ran ge of 360 m on th s t o li f e . Id

. at 687- 89. The o nl y re as on that the defendant i n that case ave rt ed a hi gh er pri son sente nce i s that he w as c h ar ge d w ith j u st tw o c ou n ts ca rry in g a c om b in ed m ax im um o f 2 0 year s, wh i ch i s what the dist ri ct c ourtga ve h im
. Id

. at68 7- 88. The sen te n c ing j ud ge w as expli ci t, how eve r, t h at the defe nd ant would have bee n i m pri son ed for lon ge r if no t fo r th e s ta tu to ry ca p s. Id

. a t6 9 0
. At a l l ev en ts , M cCaf

f r ey re p re se n ts an ex tr em e, an d sim p ly because A ngl e’ s co nd uct was l ess eg re gi ous d oe s not m ea n tha t hi s pat te r n o fabus e co ul d no t su st ain b o ththe upwar d a dj us tmenta nd a n abo ve - r an g e se nt en ce . The dist ri ct cour t concl ud ed that ther e w as re l i ab le e vi dence that A ngl e abused posi ti ons of tr ust and, on this b as is, re aso n ed t hat An gl e’ s ca se w as com parabl e t o M cC a ffrey

. W e a gr ee w i th thatas ses sm ent. A thi r d r ea so n g i ve n b y the d istri ct c o ur t f o r s en te ncing A ngl e ab o ve the g ui del i ne s r an g e i s th athe crea tedchi l d pornog ra phy. A ngl e no t o nl y t ra ve led to M exi co f orthe sp ec ific purpose o fenga gi ng in sexual abuse ofchi l dren, but he ar ra nged forthe encounter s t o be10 N o. 08

- 2087 fi lm ed so thathe cou ld t r a d e th e tap es. T he up w ard adj us t men t f o r a pa t t e r n o f ab us e i s de s i g ne d t o pu ni sh se x u al a b u se or ex p l o i ta tio n, M cC a ffrey, 437 F. 3d at 688; Lova as , 24 1 F
. 3d at 904, notthe producti on o fchi l d pornog

r ap h y, see U. S
. S
. G. § 2 G2
. 2 c mt. n. 1 ( “ ‘ S e xu a l ab us e o r ex pl o i ta ti o n’ ” do es no t i ncl ude po ss es si o n, a cc es sing w i th i ntent to vi ew , r ecei pt, or tr affi cki ng i n m ate ri al relating to the sex ua l abu se o r exp loi tation of a m inor. ”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wi l l i am s on , 43 9 F
. 3d 1125 , 11 39 n. 16 ( 9th C ir. 20 06 ); U nited Sta tes v. Wo o dw a rd, 277 F. 3d 87, 91 ( 1st Cir
. 20 02); U nited St a tes v. Kem m ish , 12 0 F
. 3d 937, 94 1- 42 ( 9th Ci r . 1 99 7)
. S ec ti o n 2 G2.2 d oes no t addr es s th e cre ati on o fchi l d pornog ra phy, and i t was appropr i ate f or the di s t r i c tc o ur tt o ta k e i nt o a c c o un ttha tn a r r o w s c o pe inex er c isin g its s en te n c in g d isc re tio n . See G ri ff ith , 34 4 F. 3d at 719 ( expla i ni ng tha t a n upw ar d adj ustm ent m ay be inadequ ate to a d d re ss the deg re e o fse xual explo i tatio n ); s e e a l so U nited Sta tes v. W ho rley, 55 0 F
. 3d 326, 33 9- 42 ( 4th Ci r. 20 08) ( affi rm i ng a b ov e- ra nge s entence as re aso nabl e w here ci rcum sta nces w er e aty pica l an d n ot taken i nt o accou nt by the guid eli ne s). In f a c t, A ng le’ s i nvolv em ent in m aking chi l d pornog ra phy m i ght ha ve w ar ra nted a c ro ss- re fer ence to the hi ghero ffense l eve l s i n U. S
. S
. G. § 2 G2
. 1 f o r p r o du c t i o n o ffe ns e s. See U
. S. S. G
. § 2G 2.2( c) ( 1998 ); Unit ed Stat e s v . Dawn , 12 9 F.3d 878 , 880-81 (7th C ir. 1997). F ou rt h, th e d ist ric t c ou rtw as u n p er su ad ed th at A n gle had show n any re m or se f orhi s abusi ve c on d u c t. Tw i ce previ ousl y Angle had bee n convi cte d ofse x offenses aga i nst c hi l dren, and aftertho se con vi cti ons he decl i ne d o pp o r t un i t i e s t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n t r e a t men t f o r se xN o. 08

- 2087 11 offe n d er s. W h at is m or e, th e c o u r t o b se rv ed , A n gle bo as te d abo uthi s cr i m i na l c o nduc t i n wr i tt enc o r r espondence and I nt er n et chat m ess age s. The abs ence of re m or se , th e c ou rtrea so n ed , m ad e it like ly th at A n gle wo ul d r e sum e his ab us i v e c o nd uc twh e n he i s r e l e a s e d. A n gle ’s fu tu re d an ge ro u sn es s is n otac c ou n te d fo r in § 2G 2.2(b)(4), a n d , thu s, th ere w as no error in the j ud ge’s deci si on t o i m pose an abo ve- ra nge s en tence o n thi s ba si s. See G riffith, 344 F. 3d at 719-20 ( up hold ing up w ard d e p arture bas ed on d efendant’ s tw o pri orco nvi cti ons f or sexualabuse o fchi l dren and hi s three f ai l ed att em pts to c om p let e t re at m en t fo r s e x offe n d er s); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Turch en, 18 7 F
. 3d 73 5, 74 2 ( 7th Ci r . 19 99) (up ho l di ng up w ar d dep ar ture i n chi l d-por nogr aphy pro secuti on wher e defen dan t’ s cr i m i na l hi st o r y a nd un su cc es sful reha bil itation sug geste d ri sk of recid ivi sm ). A n gle as se rt s t h at n on e of th es e rea so n s is “c om p ellin g,” but hi s conte nti on i s obvi ousl y subj ecti ve and, re gar dle ss, m isu n d er s t a n d s th e n at u re of ou r re vie w . Ou r ta sk is si m plyto as ses s whether the o ver all pri son sente nce i m po se d b y the di st r i ctc o ur t i s r ea so nabl e i n l i g hto fthe j u s tific at ion s fo r th at se n te n c e. E .g., U nited Sta tes v. P erez , 58 1 F .3d 53 9, 54 8 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. M cKi nney, 543 F. 3d 911, 91 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. The s en te n ci ng guidel i n e s a r e a d v i s o r y ; th e i mpr i s o n me n tr a n g e i s o n e o fthe f acto rs enum er ate d i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) , but a di str i ct co ur t do es no t ne ed a “c o m pel l i ng” r ea so n t o e xc ee d the ra n ge . U ni ted St at e s v. Ne l s on , 129 S. Ct
. 890, 892 (2009 ); U nited Sta tes v. K irkpa trick, 589 F .3 d 414, 415-16 (7th Cir. 2009 ). Th at w as th e po int of K im br o ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 552 U
. S. 85 ( 2007 ) , w hi ch, after our l ast re m and , clari fi ed12 N o. 08

- 2087 that a di str i ct c ou rt is fr ee to w ei gh anyse ntenci ng f acto r d i ffe r e n t l y th a n th e S e n t e n c i n gC o mmi s s i o n, e ve n i n a typi calcas e. Ki m b r ough , 5 5 2 U
. S. at 10 1; U ni t e d S t at e s v. A lld redg e, 551 F. 3d 645, 64 7 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 8)
. A l l that m at te rs is th at th e s en te n c e im p os ed be rea so n ab le in re l ati on t o t h e “package ” o fr eas ons gi ven bythe cour t, and i n that sense Kim b r ough ha s er o ded the pre m i se i n o ur l astr em and ofr equi ring the dist ri ct t o quanti fy ho w A ngl e’ s s i tuati on e xceeded a “ m i ne r u n ” ap pli cati on o f § 2 G 2.2 (b )(5)
. See K im bro ug h, 552 U
. S. at 11 0; M cK inn ey, 543 F. 3d at 913. The di str i ct c ourt d id exactl y what w e a ske d i n expla i ni ng i ts ap p licat i on o fsubse cti on (b) ( 4) , but, as w e no w r eco gni ze , i t was al so w i thi n the cour t’ s power to di sa g r ee wi ththe wei g ht gi ve n b y the S en te nc i ng Com m i ssi on t o the “ pattern ofabuse ” a dj ustm ent. That br i ngs u s to the fi nalr eas on g i ven bythe dist ri ct cour t for its se ntence: the i m pri sonm ent r ange that Angl e woul d ha ve f ac ed unde r the 2 00 6 ve r si o n o fthe gu id elin es in e ffec t w h en h e w a s l a st se n te n c ed . A n gle pr i nc i pal l y c o nt en ds th atthe l an g uage o fo urr emand precl ud ed the cour t fro m ta ki ng not i ce o fr evi si ons to § 2 G 2.2 , bu t w e im p os ed n o s u c h lim i t a tio n . A n gle is cor re ct in ass um i ng t h at a dist ri ct c ourtm ust a dh er e t o th e sc op e of a rem an d fro m th is c o u rt, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Whit e, 406 F. 3d 827, 831 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) , but the s cope o f any r em and i s det er m i ned f ro m r eadi ng al l, notpart, o f an op in ion, U nited Sta tes v. H usba nd, 312 F. 3d 247, 25 1 ( 7th C ir. 20 02 ); U ni t e d S ta tes v. P a rker, 10 1 F
. 3d 527, 52 8 ( 7th C ir. 19 96 ). A fte r or al arg u m en t in A n gle ’s th ird ap p ea l, h is l awy erno ti fi ed us tha t Angl e ha d b ee n a ppr i se d o fthe possibi l i ty that hi s fourth sent enci ng would be gover n edN o. 08

- 2087 13 bythe upda te d g ui del i ne s, an d we r es po nde d wi ththe ob servat i on that a pp l yi ng the curr ent guidel i nes o n r emand woul d no t r ai se a n ex po stfact o c o n c e r n ; we d id n otim p ly th at u sin g t h e c u rre n t g u id elin es w ou ld ex c ee d th e s c op e o f ou r re m an d

. A ngle III , 21 6 F. A pp ’ x at 55 9 n. 1. Ourde ci si o n in An gle IIIw as released before th i s co ur t cl ar i fi ed th at, u nd er1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 74 2( g ) , the g ui del i ne s i n e ffec t atthe t im e o f th e o r i g i na l s en te nc i ng m u st b e used aga i n w hen an a pp ealr esul ts i n an o rder f orr ese ntenci ng, U nited Sta t e s v . Ta nn er, 54 4 F
. 3d 793, 795 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , but the for ce o fthi s s tatutor y l i m itat i o n d o e s n o ta l t e r th e s c o p e o fth e r e m a n d w e c o n t e mpl at ed. M o r eo ve r, e ve n tho ug h § 3 74 2( g ) preclud ed th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t fr o m applyi ngthe 2 00 6 g ui del i ne s, the s t a t u t e di d n o tb a r th e c o u r tfr o m co ns ul t i ngthe S en tenci ng Com m i ssi on’ s cur re nt vi ew s a s a gui de to i ts ex ercise of B o o k erdi sc r et i o n. U nited Sta tes v. Joh nso n, 427 F.3 d 42 3, 42 7 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); U nited Sta tes v. C o e, 220 F. 3d 573, 578 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). A nd that i s allthe d istri ct cou rt d id h er e. T o q u ot e t h e d ist ric t cou rt, “it w ou ld b e im p os sibl e t o i gnor e the per ver se f ac t th at , were A ngl e t o be sente n ced f orthe sam e co nd uct under the cur re nt gui del i nes, hi s a dvis or y r ange w oul d be 3 60 m onths to l i fe, and the co urt w oul d need to expla i n w h y a sentence o f les s t h an 36 0 m on th s is ap p ro p ria te .” Angl e al so c o nt en ds that the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s as se ss m en t of h is gu id elin es ran ge u n d er th e 2 00 6 v er s i o n o f § 2G 2.2 w as i naccurat e. But thi s a sse rt i on r eal l y c om es dow n to hi s be l i efthatth e c ou rtdi d not a dequ ate l y e xplain i ts c on c lu sio n th at, un d er th e 2 00 6 g u i d elin es , he w ou ld r ecei v e a 5

- l e v e l i nc r e a s e f o r i nt e nd i ngt o t r a de14 N o. 08

- 2087

c h ild p or n og ra p h y for ot h er c h i l d p or n og ra p h y, see U
. S. S. G. § 2G2. 2( b) ( 3) ( B) ( 2006 ) , plus a 4

- l eve l i ncre ase f or p os se ss in g 3 00 to 60 0 im ag es of ch ild p or n og ra p h y, i d. § 2 G2. 2( b) ( 7) ( 2006 )
. Bef or e An gl e’s late st re sente nci ng, how eve r, the proba ti on o ffi cerr evi sed the prese ntence re portto expl ai n that A ngl e would be el i gibl e forbo th i nc r ea se s. Angl e di d no t o bj ec t o n the g r o und tha t th e pr o b a t i o n o ffi cer ’ s p r o po s e d fi nd i ng s we r e n o ts up port ed b y th e e vi dence, and the dist ri ct c ourtr el i ed on thos e fi nd i ngs, w h i ch the cour t was ent i tl ed to do. See U nited Sta tes v. Heck el , 570 F.3d 791 , 795 (7th C ir. 2009); U ni t e d Sta tes v. Sa l i nas , 365 F.3d 582 , 587 (7th C ir. 2004). H ad Angl e wi sh ed to c ast doub t o n the r el i ab i l i tyo fthe i nfo rm ati on in the re vi sed pre sente nce r epor t, he was ob liga te d to d isp u te its ac c u ra c y, w h ich h e d id n otd o. See Heck el , 57 0 F
. 3d at 795. Thi s fi nalar gum ent, then, l i ke Angl e’ s pr ev i o us co nt en ti o n, i s wi th o ut m er i t. W e thus up hol d the 30 0- m onth t ota l i m pri sonm ent.

B. Speci al Cond i t i on ofSup ervi sed R el ease Angl e m ak es o ne addi ti o na l ar g um en t th at ar o se f o r the fi rs t t i m e aftero ur l astr em and. A t the fi nalr ese ntenci ng, th e d istri ct cou rt i m p osed as a spe cial con d iti on of sup e rvi sed r el eas e that An gl e “ sh all n ot have perso nalacc ess to com pu terInter net s er vi ces. ” Thi s co nd i tio n w as not su g g es te d i n adv an ce butfi r str ai se d i n o penc o ur t dur i ng sente nci ng. A ngl e obj ecte d to that condi ti on, and on appeal he c onte nd s that the di str i ct c ourtw as re quir ed to g i ve h im n o ti ce b efo r e i m po sings ucha c o ndi ti o n a nd that bar ring h im fr om usi ng the Inter net i s bo th unnecessar y a nd unrea sonab l e.N o. 08

- 2087 15 W e r evi ew speci alco nd i ti ons ofsuperv i sed r el eas e for an ab u se of d isc re tio n . A ng le I , 23 4 F
. 3d at 346. W hen i m posi ng super vi sed r el eas e, a dist ri ct c ourtm ust i nc l ude se ve r al m an dat o r y co ndi ti o ns , m ay i m po se an y condi ti on s et f or th as a disc re ti onar y c ondit i on ofpro bati on, and m ay al so i ncl ud e any othe r condi ti on it c on sid e r s t o b e a p p ro p ria te
. See 18 U
. S. C
. § 3583(d ); § 3 563(b) ( 1)

- ( 10)
. The co nd i ti ons how eve r, m ust be r easo nabl y r el at ed to ( 1) the de fen dan t’ s o ffen se , hi st o r y a nd ch ar ac te r i st i cs ; ( 2) the nee d fo r ade qua te det er r en ce ; ( 3) the ne ed to pr o te ctthe pub l i c fr o m fur th erc r i m es o fthe defe nd ant; and ( 4) the need to p ro vi de the defendant w i th tr ea tm en t. 18 U .S.C . § 35 83 (d ); U nite d Sta te s v. Holm , 32 6 F. 3d 872, 87 7- 78 (7t h Ci r. 20 03)
. They m ust a l so “i nvol ve no g re ate r depri vati on o fliber ty than is r eas onabl y nec ess a r y ” t o e ffe c t ua t e sente nc i ngp ur po s e s . 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 58 3( d)( 2)
. A l though we have express ed ske pti ci sm about the r eas onabl eness o fbanni n g Internet use enti rely, s ee U nited Sta tes v. Silv io us, 512 F. 3d 364, 37 1 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ); Ho lm , 362 F. 3d at 877- 78, w e nonethel ess h ave l e ft o pe n the po s s ib i l i t y tha t s uc h a c o nd i t i o n m i ght b e j usti fi ed i fthe I nter net w as used to co m m i t the cr i m e o f c on vic tio n, Silv io us, 51 2 F .3d at37 1; U nite d Sta te s v . Scott, 316 F.3d 733, 735 (7th Cir. 2003). A ng l e fi r s ta r g ue s tha tthe c o ur twa s r e qu i r e d t o gi ve noti ce o fi ts i ntent to i m pose thi s co nd i ti on o f superv i sed r el ea se b ec au se i t was a na l o g o us t o a d ep ar tu r e fr o m the gui del i nes. Thi s a rgum ent f ai l s. Pos t- B o o k er, w h i c h ma de the guidel i nes a dvis or y, A ngle III , 21 6 F ed. A pp ’ x at 560, an d f o urs en te nc i nghe ar i ng s, Angl e co ul d ha ve ha d no e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r a se n t e n c e wi th i n g u i d e l i n e r a n g e . As16 N o. 08

- 2087 the guidel i nes c onte m pla te a t er m of supervi sed r el eas e, an d p ro vid e t h e d ist ric t c ou rtw ith br oa d d isc re t i o n in i m posi ng appropri ate condi ti ons f or th e sup er vi sed re l ea se , A ngl e co uld notr eas onabl y b el i eve thatan I nt erne t ban w as so “ou t of th e ordin ary,” as to requ ire n ot ice
. U nite d State s v. M cKiss ic, 4 28 F.3d 71 9, 725 (7th Cir. 2005 ). In fact, t h e 2 006 gu idelines w hich the d istri ct cou rt ha d the di s c r e t i o n t o c o ns ul t, s pe c i fi c a l l yc o nt e mpl a te l i m i ting th e us e o fa c o m put eri n c as es wher e th e defen d an t u se d a c om p u te r for se x off e n s e s. U .S.S.G § 5D 1.3( d )( 7)(B) ( 2006 ). A ng le nex t argu es t ha t the cond iti on is un ne cess ary and unreaso nabl e. W e di sag re e. In 199 7 a nd 19 98, wh en th e I nt erne t was f ai r l y new, A ng l e was co nv i ct ed o fus i ng the Inter net t o sol i ci t a m in or f orse x. H e a l so used the Inter n et t o se t up a pornog ra phy tr ade with a di str ibuter, and posse sse d an extensi ve am ount ofchi l d pornog

ra phy on co m pu terd isk et tes and zi p disk s. Fur ther m or e, hi s us e o fthe I nter net was noti ntegr al l y c onnecte d to hi s pro fess i on a s he w as pr ev iou sl y e m plo yed as a sal esm an and m echani c. These f acts ea si l y di stingui sh Angl e fr o m the de fen dan t i n Holm wh o w as c on vi cted o fs i m pl y p osses singc hi l d po r no g r aph y a nd us ed th e com pu terand I nter net extensi vel y in hi s o ccupati on a s a i nf o r m at i o n s y st ems t ec hno l o g i st
. F i na l l y, unl i k e th e di st r i ctc o ur t i n Holm , her e the di str i ct c ourtdi d not im p os e a co m p let e b an on th e In te rn et, d isa llow in g on ly “p erson al” acces s to I nt erne t services. U nd er t he se circu m stan ces, w e can not conc lud e tha t the district cou rt ab used its di sc r et i o n in thwar tingAngl e fr o m g aini ng p er so n al a c c es s t o th e In te rn et d u rin g t h e p e r iod of h isN o. 08

- 2087 17

su p er vis ed rele as e. See, e.g., U nited Sta tes v . Zin n, 321 F.3 d 10 84 , 109 2-9 3 (1 1 t h C ir. 20 03 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Paul, 274 F. 3d 155, 166- 66 ( 5th Ci r. 20 01); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cr ando n, 173 F. 3d 122, 12 7- 28 ( 3d Cir

. 19 99); c. f

. U nit e d S t at e s v. P eraz z a -M erca do , 5 5 3 F
. 3 d 6 5 , 7 0 ( 1 s tC i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( h o l d i ng th at t ota l Inter net b an unrel ate d to charg ed offense w as im p erm issibly broad ).

I I I . C ONC L US I ON A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s entence
.

3- 15- 10