Court Opinion

ID: 9499226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:41:33.125955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:21.669350
License: Public Domain

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but, on remand, I would not limit the discretion of the sentencing judge. I view it imprudent to establish a bright-line rule regarding how remote in time a prior conviction must be before it is not reasonably related to a district court’s sentencing calculations. However, I agree with the majority that on this record, the government did not demonstrate, and the district court did not sufficiently explain, why, if at all, Carter’s prior sex offenses were reasonably related to the imposition of the specific condition of mental-health treatment seventeen years later.
On remand, I would not preclude the sentencing judge from articulating reasons, if any, why defendant’s 1988 rape and assault with intent to commit rape *534convictions, coupled with his current character and propensities, warrant the special condition. In determining whether a district court acted within its discretion by relying on prior sex-related convictions to justify the imposition of special conditions, the inquiry is fact-specific and should be decided on a case-by-ease basis. See, e.g., United States v. Vinson, 147 Fed.Appx. 763, 772-73 (10th Cir.2005) (unpublished) (holding that defendant, who was convicted of wire and mail fraud and subscribing to false tax return and who had previously been convicted of a sex offense ten years earlier, could be required to participate in sex offender and/or mental health treatment).
For these reasons, I would not limit the discretion of the district court on remand.