United States v. Eric Putnam, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20582

Eric Putnam pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250. The statute sets supervised-release range of five years to life.
The PSR treated the offense as a "sex offense" under U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b)(2), yielding a Guidelines supervised-release range of five years to life; the PSR also recommended a special condition prohibiting alcohol use.
The district court adopted the PSR, sentenced Putnam to 10 months’ imprisonment and 15 years’ supervised release with an alcohol-prohibition condition.
Putnam did not object at sentencing; this court therefore reviewed both issues for plain error.
The government conceded the Guidelines calculation was erroneous under controlling Fifth Circuit precedent and amended Guidelines commentary clarifying that failure to register is not a "sex offense."
The court found the 15-year supervised-release term was three times the correct Guidelines recommendation and vacated that portion of the sentence, remanding for resentencing; it did not reach the alcohol-condition issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to register under §2250 qualifies as a "sex offense" for Guidelines §5D1.2(b)(2) and therefore supports a five-years-to-life Guidelines range for supervised release	Putnam: the offense is not a "sex offense" under the Guidelines; Guideline range is only the statutory minimum (five years) and the offense should not be treated as sex-offense for lifetime exposure	Government: conceded plain error but relied on Segura to argue sentencing would be same despite Guidelines error	Court: Failure to register is not a sex offense under the Guidelines; correct Guidelines recommendation is five years (statutory minimum), not five years to life.
Whether the alcohol-prohibition special condition was plain error	Putnam: condition was imposed without objection and should be reconsidered on remand	Government: supported the condition at sentencing (implicitly)	Court: Declined to decide because supervised-release term was vacated; left alcohol condition for district court to reconsider on resentencing.

United States v. Segura, 747 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding failure to register is not a Guidelines "sex offense")
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (plain-error standard when defendant fails to object at sentencing)
United States v. Escalante–Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (explaining plain-error review and substantial-rights requirement)
United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (presumption of prejudice when defendant sentenced within incorrect Guidelines range)
United States v. Hernandez, 690 F.3d 613 (5th Cir. 2012) (exercising discretion to correct plain error when sentence exceeded correct Guidelines range)
United States v. John, 597 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2010) (same)
United States v. Cooper, 274 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2001) (correcting overlong supervised-release term on appeal)
United States v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556 (5th Cir. 2000) (same)