Court Opinion

ID: 9386812
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 18:00:48.379938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.660922
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12015    Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 04/13/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-12015
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       SCOTT RUSSELL GRANDEN,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00151-SCJ-LTW-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12015     Document: 40-1     Date Filed: 04/13/2023   Page: 2 of 4

       2                     Opinion of the Court                22-12015

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Scott Granden was drunk on a plane when he engaged in
       unwanted sexual contact with a female passenger next to him. Dur-
       ing the flight, Granden placed his hand on her thigh, touched her
       groin area, kissed her neck, and slapped her buttocks—all without
       her consent. Granden was arrested when his flight landed, and he
       later pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact aboard
       an aircraft under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The district court sentenced
       him to twenty-one months’ imprisonment followed by one year of
       supervised release and imposed several special conditions during
       his year of supervised release, including:
                 • Plethysmograph testing (condition 6);
                 • Periodic polygraph examinations (condition 7);
                 • Prohibition on viewing or possessing any “visual de-
                   piction” of “sexually explicit conduct,” as defined in
                   18 U.S.C. § 2256 (condition 8);
                 • Prohibition on possessing children’s clothing, toys, or
                   games unless approved by his probation officer (ex-
                   cept for biological children) (condition 9);
                 • No contact with any child under eighteen unless ap-
                   proved by his probation officer (except for biological
                   children) (condition 10);
USCA11 Case: 22-12015      Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 04/13/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-12015                Opinion of the Court                         3

                  • No dating or marrying anyone who has children un-
                    der eighteen unless approved by his probation officer
                    (except for biological children) (condition 11);
                  • No engaging in an occupation or volunteer work that
                    would allow access to children under eighteen unless
                    approved by his probation officer (condition 13);
                  • No patronizing adult entertainment establishments
                    (condition 14);
                  • No travel to any place where children under eighteen
                    are likely to congregate unless approved by his proba-
                    tion officer (conditions 15 and 16).
              Granden objected, arguing that these special conditions
       were not justified by his offense conduct, personal characteristics,
       or criminal history. The district court overruled the objection with-
       out explanation, and Granden timely appealed.
              Granden argues that the district court erred by (1) imposing
       special conditions of supervisory release that were not reasonably
       related to the purposes of sentencing and (2) failing to state the rea-
       sons for the special conditions. The government agrees that many
       of the special conditions are unjustified and that the district court
       erred by failing to articulate reasons for any of the special condi-
       tions of supervised release.
              When a defendant raises nonfrivolous objections to a sen-
       tence, the district court should “explain why [it] has rejected those
USCA11 Case: 22-12015     Document: 40-1      Date Filed: 04/13/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-12015

       arguments.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007). A terse
       explanation may suffice. See id. But, at a minimum, a district court
       “must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for mean-
       ingful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sen-
       tencing.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007).
              Here, the district court gave no explanation for overruling
       Granden’s objection to the special conditions of supervised release
       or for imposing them in the first place. As the government notes,
       many of the special conditions are plainly directed at regulating
       Granden’s contact with children, even though Granden’s crime
       was against an adult woman and he has no history of crimes against
       children. It is possible that some of the special conditions are con-
       sistent with the purposes of sentencing. But the district court did
       not explain why it believed they were justified, and the govern-
       ment agrees that we cannot affirm a district court’s unexplained
       sentencing decision in this circumstance.
             Accordingly, we VACATE the special conditions on
       Granden’s term of supervised release and REMAND for resentenc-
       ing consistent with this opinion.