Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffrey J. HUSSINGER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-03
Citations: 606 F. App'x 311
Docket Number: No. 14-2708
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffrey J. HUSSINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 606
Pages: 311–312

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jeffrey J. HUSSINGER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-2708.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted June 1, 2015.
Decided June 3, 2015.
Mario F. Gonzales, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Milwaukee, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Peter W. Henderson, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Urbana, IL, George F. Taseff, Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Peoria, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Opinion:
Order
Jeffrey Hussinger pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841, 846, and to possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. The district court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 60 months' imprisonment, which the judge repeatedly described as the minimum allowed by law for the drug conviction. But that belief may have been incorrect. The presen-tence report had concluded that Hussinger is eligible for a "safety valve" reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). See also U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. The district court never considered that possibility. Hussinger contends that it is a legal mistake to impose a sentence influenced by a (potentially) incorrect belief that the law does not allow any shorter term; the United States concurs and confesses error. We agree with the litigants and remand for further consideration.
The district court's first order of business on remand will be determining wheth er Hussinger satisfies the criteria of § 3553(f). The district court also must take account of our recent decisions that affect both the procedure and substance of conditions of supervised release. See, e.g., United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir.2015).
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing,