Opinion ID: 2828805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Supervised-Release Conditions

Text: 18 U.S.C. § 3583 governs the imposition of supervised release. For certain crimes, supervised release is mandatory; for others, the sentencing court has discretion to impose it— within bounds defined by the statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a), (b). This is a case where supervised release was mandatory for a period of at least five years. See id. § 3583(k) (requiring supervised release for violators of 18 U.S.C. § 2250). In determining the length and conditions of supervised release (and in deciding whether to impose it at all in cases where it is not mandatory), a court must consider the same § 3553(a) factors that guide sentencing determinations generally. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c). Excluded from that list, however, is § 3553(a)(2)(A), the need for “just punishment.” Id. For the goal of supervised release is primarily to prevent recidivism and foster the offender’s re-entry into society; not to punish. See United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368, 374 (7th Cir. 2015); Siegel, 753 F.3d at 708. If a statute mandates supervised release (or, where it does not, if the court determines supervised release is appropriate), § 3583(d) makes certain conditions mandatory. Additional conditions may also be mandatory by operation of other applicable statutes, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e). But the court has discretion to impose a wide range of non-mandatory conditions as well. Whether they go by the name “standard,” “discretionary,” “special,” or something else, non-mandatory conditions must comply with three statutory requirements. They 12 No. 14-2787 must: (1) be “reasonably related” to the defendant’s characteristics, the nature of the offense, and the goals of supervised release; (2) “involve[] no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to accomplish those goals; and (3) be consistent with any pertinent sentencing policy statements. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d)(1)-(3). Furthermore, the court must “give a reason, consistent with the sentencing factors in section 3553(a),” for its decision to impose the conditions it chooses. United States v. Bryant, 754 F.3d 443, 445 (7th Cir. 2014); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). We review a district court’s imposition of non-mandatory conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion, United States v. Baker, 755 F.3d 515, 523 (7th Cir. 2014), though we examine de novo claims of procedural error, United States v. Poulin, 745 F.3d 796, 800 (7th Cir. 2014). District courts have not always applied the statutory requirements when imposing supervised-release conditions. See Siegel, 753 F.3d at 708 (identifying “serious problems with how some district judges are handling discretionary condi- tions”). So, in a series of recent opinions, including Siegel, Thompson, and United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015), we have emphasized the importance of following proper procedures and have given additional guidance to