Opinion ID: 3013595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Relationship to the Goals of Sentencing

Text: Finally, Landry challenges the drug and work-related conditions as not reasonably related to the goals of sentencing. He cites our decision in United States v. Loy, 191 F.3d 360 (3d Cir. 1999), for the proposition that “the conditions of supervised release must be reasonably related to the goals of deterrence, protection of the public and rehabilitation of the defendant.” Id. at 371. Earlier in that opinion, we cited “the need for the sentence imposed to deter future criminal conduct, protect the public, and provide the defendant with necessary training, medical care, or other correctional treatment.” Id. at 370 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) & (2)). Given the evidence we cited earlier as a basis for the drug restriction and the legitimacy of the goal of rehabilitation, we 11 cannot say that the District Court committed plain error in imposing the condition. We note again that the record may not support the conclusion that Landry has a serious drug problem, but it also does not compel the conclusion that he completely lacks “any substance abuse problem.” See United States v. Modena, 302 F.3d 626, 636 (6th Cir. 2002) (rejecting a similar drug treatment condition as an abuse of discretion because “the PSR specifically states that the probation officer ‘has no information pertaining to substance abuse/use pertaining to Mr. Modena’”). Similarly, our stated basis for the work restriction provides a reasonable relationship between the restriction and the goal of protecting the public, as Landry’s previous exploitation of at least one minor suggests that he might revert to similar depravity if regularly exposed to other minors.