United States v. Kenneth Raney
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14126
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Kenneth Raney, convicted of interstate travel with intent to engage in sexual acts with a minor and attempted manufacture of child pornography, was released and served supervised release with multiple standard and special conditions.
- Over several years Raney had repeated supervision issues (unsanctioned associations, possession of a memory stick, polygraph concerns); probation officers repeatedly warned him and modified conditions (including electronic monitoring).
- In May 2014 Raney requested permission to travel to the Milwaukee Zoo, stating he would go with his cousin Dan and Dan’s girlfriend Cindy; unbeknownst to the probation officer, Jackie Hauser and her two sons (ages 10 and 12) accompanied them.
- Raney submitted monthly written supervision reports (May–August) denying unreported contact with minors; he later acknowledged dating Jackie in August and informed his therapist in September; probation discovered the earlier contacts after a polygraph and texts.
- The district court found Raney violated Standard Condition 3 (truthfulness and following probation officer instructions), revoked supervised release, sentenced him to nine months’ imprisonment and 24 months’ additional supervised release, and added a special condition requiring sale of his RV.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed revocation but vacated and remanded the sentence (including the RV condition) for further proceedings and resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Raney's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility / Confrontation: use of non-testifying polygraph reports | Admission violated confrontation and Rule 32.1 rights | Reports were admitted only to show what probation officer knew; no reliance on polygraph science | No plain error: court limited use and did not rely on polygraph to find violation |
| Whether Raney violated Standard Condition 3 (truthfulness) | Omission to probation officer is not an affirmative lie; polygraph statements to a non-officer cannot form a violation | Raney both omitted material facts when requesting travel and affirmatively lied on monthly written reports | Affirmed: sufficient proof by preponderance that Raney lied in written reports and omitted material info; revocation not clearly erroneous |
| Procedural notice and fairness re: using monthly reports as basis for violation | He lacked notice the monthly reports would be treated as a §3583(e) violation; denied due process | Raney authored the reports; contents were not a surprise; he failed to raise the objection at hearing/earlier brief | Objection waived and no unfair surprise; monthly reports supported violation |
| Sentencing and Special Condition (sell RV) | Court failed to apply §3553(a)/§3583(e) factors; RV sale was imposed without notice and written order conflicts with oral pronouncement | Government initially defended condition but later conceded remand is appropriate for fuller analysis | Vacated and remanded: revocation affirmed but sentence (including RV condition and 24‑month term) vacated for resentencing with proper §3583/§3553 analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review framework)
- Preacely v. United States, 702 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard of proof and review for supervised‑release revocations)
- Shannon v. United States, 743 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 2014) (standards for imposing special conditions of supervised release)
- Kappes v. United States, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (notice required before imposing non‑statutory supervised‑release conditions; sentencing explanation requirement)
- Thompson v. United States, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (court must evaluate appropriateness of supervised‑release conditions under §3553 factors)