United States v. Calvin Windless, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11818

Windless, a sex offender, was convicted for a 1992 aggravated kidnapping and aggravated criminal sexual assaults and later failed to register as a sex offender in Mississippi.
PSR relied on some arrests without detailed conduct descriptions; several arrest entries were described with little or no accompanying conduct.
District court used Windless’s arrest history—including bare arrest records—in fashioning special conditions of supervised release.
Two supervised-release conditions were imposed: participation in a mental-health program (potentially including polygraphs) and a broad no-contact-with-minors rule unless supervised by an approved adult.
Windless objected, arguing that the district court relied on bare arrest records and that the no-contact condition was overly broad and unreasonable.
Court of Appeals vacated the mental-health condition, reversed the no-contact condition as currently phrased, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by relying on bare arrest records.	Windless contends arrests with no accompanying conduct details were improper.	Windless argues the court may rely on the full criminal history including arrests.	Yes; the court erred in relying on bare arrest records for supervised-release decisions.
Whether the no direct or indirect contact with children condition was substantively unreasonable.	Windless argues the restriction is overly broad and infringes liberty.	The district court acted within its discretion to protect victims and public from risk.	Yes; the condition as drafted was substantively unreasonable and must be vacated on remand.
Whether the mental-health treatment condition should be vacated on remand.	Windless challenged the necessity and scope of the program under the guidelines.	The condition aligns with rehabilitative goals under supervision.	Vacated; remanded for resentencing."

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (procedural errors in sentencing must be addressed; due process protections apply)
Johnson v. United States, 648 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2011) (procedural safeguards in sentencing and reliance on arrest records)
Weatherton v. United States, 567 F.3d 149 (5th Cir. 2009) (limits on consideration of prior arrests in sentencing)
Delgado-Martinez v. United States, 564 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2009) (harmless-error-like analysis for improper sentencing procedure)
Johnson v. United States, 632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir. 2011) (arrests and sentencing considerations in context of listed authorities)