Opinion ID: 6103672
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Government’s counterarguments

Text: The Government fails to demonstrate the district court made the requisite findings. It merely summarizes the testimony that it presented at the modification hearing and argues that, based on this testimony and Mr. Englehart’s criminal 21 Appellate Case: 21-8007 Document: 010110632142 Date Filed: 01/14/2022 Page: 22 history, the district court had ample basis to impose the Sexual Material Prohibition. Maybe so, but that is not the same as showing that the district court “set forth, on the record, defendant-specific findings that show a compelling interest.” Koch, 978 F.3d at 726. Instead, the Government relies extensively on record evidence and testimony that the district court never discussed. We express no opinion whether the Sexual Material Prohibition could have been justified by the evidence available in the record. To enable meaningful appellate review, the district court must do so. We remand for the district court to try again.