United States v. Benjamin McMiller, 954 F.3d 670

Benjamin McMiller, an elementary-school teacher, was arrested after sharing child pornography on Omegle; a consensual search found an external hard drive with 88 images and 54 videos, including sexualized images of infants and toddlers.
He pleaded guilty to transportation and possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.
Initial Guidelines range was 151–188 months; the district court reduced two levels by removing the computer-enhancement, yielding a Guidelines range of 121–151 months.
The court sentenced McMiller to 121 months’ imprisonment (concurrent) and imposed lifetime supervised release with the Western District of North Carolina’s standing “standard sex offender conditions.”
Two special conditions (conditions 9 and 13) barred internet-capable devices and social‑network accounts without probation approval; the court did not separately explain these conditions and McMiller did not object at sentencing.
The court also imposed two $5,000 special assessments under 18 U.S.C. § 3014 based on the PSR’s assessment of future earnings potential.

Issue	McMiller’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether the district court plainly erred by imposing $5,000 § 3014 special assessments based on future earning potential	Court lacked an explicit finding of non‑indigence and may not rely on future earnings to find ability to pay	PSR supported an implicit finding of non‑indigence; future earning potential is an appropriate factor	Affirmed — district court did not plainly err; may consider future earnings for § 3014 ability‑to‑pay determinations
Whether the district court procedurally erred by imposing unexplained, lifetime internet/social‑networking restrictions as special conditions of supervised release	Conditions are onerous and were imposed without individualized explanation; procedural error	Court’s overall sentencing explanation sufficed and standing order justified conditions	Vacated and remanded — district court plainly erred by failing to explain/tailor conditions 9 and 13; remainder of sentence affirmed

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (establishes duty to explain sentence sufficiently for appellate review)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (plain‑error review and standard for correcting forfeited errors)
United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167 (4th Cir. 2020) (district court must adequately explain special conditions of supervised release)
United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740 (4th Cir. 2019) (vacating unexplained internet‑restriction conditions; need individualized rationale)
United States v. Shepherd, 922 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2019) (district courts may consider future earnings for § 3014 assessments)
United States v. Graves, 908 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 2018) (same: future earning potential relevant to § 3014 ability‑to‑pay)
United States v. Kelley, 861 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2017) (same: future income may be considered for assessments/fines)
United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2015) (special conditions must be individualized; courts may not impose boilerplate district‑wide conditions)
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (plain‑error standard applied where defendant failed to object at sentencing)
United States v. Lockhart, 947 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (elements and application of plain‑error review)