United States v. Lewis
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9518
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- John A. Lewis (66, poor health, repeat sex-offender) convicted by jury of five federal sex offenses involving an online scheme to meet and exploit a girl; prior sex-related convictions and active sex-offender registration problems.
- District court imposed the statutory mandatory minimum 35-year prison term (practically de facto life) and a life term of supervised release (statutory minimum five years exists).
- Presentence report (PSR) included the standard and nine special supervised-release conditions ultimately imposed; defense received the PSR weeks before sentencing.
- At sentencing the judge summarized reasons for the sentence and conditions, asked counsel whether they had legal objections or wanted further elaboration, and both prosecutor and defense counsel replied “no.”
- On appeal Lewis (through new counsel) challenges the adequacy of the district court’s findings justifying lifetime supervised release and the sufficiency/validity of several specific supervised-release conditions; he did not object in the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lewis) | Defendant's Argument (Gov./District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of findings for life supervised release | Judge failed to explain why lifetime term was appropriate under §3583(d) and §3553(a) | Judge provided reasons at sentencing; defense declined further elaboration when invited | Waiver: defense expressly declined to object; affirmed |
| Validity/vagueness of specific conditions (financial disclosure, searches, computer restrictions, polygraph, ban on adult erotica, child-contact limits, etc.) | Conditions are vague/overbroad and lacked sufficient district-court explanation | Conditions were disclosed in PSR; court explained nexus to offense; defense had notice and opportunity to object | Waiver/forfeiture: no objection below; no plain error shown; affirmed |
| Procedural waiver/forfeiture by failing to object at sentencing | Failure to object should not bar appellate review where explanations were inadequate | District court expressly solicited objections; defense affirmatively said none; that constitutes waiver | Held waiver; alternatively forfeiture with no plain error requiring remand |
| Whether plain-error relief is warranted despite forfeiture | Argues remand needed for fuller findings and to test conditions | Appellate remedy unnecessary because district court would have fixed issues if litigated and conditions can be modified later under §3583(e) | No plain error; remand not required; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (standards for supervised-release findings and notice)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (importance of reasoned supervised-release explanations)
- United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2014) (supervised-release procedural requirements)
- United States v. Neal, 810 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2016) (substantive challenges to conditions can be raised during term; appellate review limited absent district-court objection)
- United States v. Silvious, 512 F.3d 364 (7th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review for overbroad conditions without objection)
- United States v. McKissic, 428 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2005) (no plain error where condition imposed without sufficient notice)
- United States v. Tejada, 476 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2007) (no plain error for certain supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (standards for plain-error review)