[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12015

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SCOTT RUSSELL GRANDEN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00151-SCJ-LTW-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-12015 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2023 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-12015

Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Scott Granden was drunk on a plane when he engaged in 

unwanted sexual contact with a female passenger next to him. During the flight, Granden placed his hand on her thigh, touched her 

groin area, kissed her neck, and slapped her buttocks—all without 

her consent. Granden was arrested when his flight landed, and he 

later pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact aboard 

an aircraft under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The district court sentenced 

him to twenty-one months’ imprisonment followed by one year of

supervised release and imposed several special conditions during 

his year of supervised release, including:

• Plethysmograph testing (condition 6);

• Periodic polygraph examinations (condition 7);

• Prohibition on viewing or possessing any “visual depiction” of “sexually explicit conduct,” as defined in 

18 U.S.C. § 2256 (condition 8);

• Prohibition on possessing children’s clothing, toys, or

games unless approved by his probation officer (except for biological children) (condition 9);

• No contact with any child under eighteen unless approved by his probation officer (except for biological 

children) (condition 10);

USCA11 Case: 22-12015 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2023 Page: 2 of 4
22-12015 Opinion of the Court 3

• No dating or marrying anyone who has children under eighteen unless approved by his probation officer

(except for biological children) (condition 11);

• No engaging in an occupation or volunteer work that 

would allow access to children under eighteen unless 

approved by his probation officer (condition 13);

• No patronizing adult entertainment establishments

(condition 14);

• No travel to any place where children under eighteen 

are likely to congregate unless approved by his probation officer (conditions 15 and 16).

Granden objected, arguing that these special conditions 

were not justified by his offense conduct, personal characteristics,

or criminal history. The district court overruled the objection without explanation, and Granden timely appealed. 

Granden argues that the district court erred by (1) imposing 

special conditions of supervisory release that were not reasonably

related to the purposes of sentencing and (2) failing to state the reasons for the special conditions. The government agrees that many 

of the special conditions are unjustified and that the district court

erred by failing to articulate reasons for any of the special conditions of supervised release. 

When a defendant raises nonfrivolous objections to a sentence, the district court should “explain why [it] has rejected those 

USCA11 Case: 22-12015 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2023 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-12015

arguments.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007). A terse 

explanation may suffice. See id. But, at a minimum, a district court 

“must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007).

Here, the district court gave no explanation for overruling 

Granden’s objection to the special conditions of supervised release

or for imposing them in the first place. As the government notes, 

many of the special conditions are plainly directed at regulating 

Granden’s contact with children, even though Granden’s crime 

was against an adult woman and he has no history of crimes against 

children. It is possible that some of the special conditions are consistent with the purposes of sentencing. But the district court did 

not explain why it believed they were justified, and the government agrees that we cannot affirm a district court’s unexplained 

sentencing decision in this circumstance. 

Accordingly, we VACATE the special conditions on 

Granden’s term of supervised release and REMAND for resentencing consistent with this opinion.

USCA11 Case: 22-12015 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2023 Page: 4 of 4