United States v. Matthew Poulin
809 F.3d 924
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Matthew Poulin pled guilty to receipt and possession of child pornography; initial sentence (2013) was 115 months’ imprisonment plus lifetime supervised release; this Court vacated and remanded for lack of adequate mitigation findings and reasoning about supervised-release conditions.
- On remand (2014) Poulin was resentenced to concurrent 84-month terms and 10 years’ supervised release with 13 standard conditions and 7 special conditions (including sex-offender, substance-abuse, and mental-health treatment, and a no-contact rule with female minors).
- The district court expressly discussed mandatory conditions and some special conditions; defense counsel expressly waived objections to many standard and treatment conditions but did object to several special-condition wordings (and to an alcohol ban).
- Poulin appealed again, challenging ten standard conditions as insufficiently justified and various special conditions (treatment grouping, payment for testing, no-contact with female minors).
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed the conditions under recent precedent (requiring conditions to be properly noticed, supported by findings, and tailored to § 3553(a) purposes) and vacated the discretionary conditions for remand, while affirming other aspects of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imposition of multiple standard conditions without findings | Poulin: court failed to make findings; many standard conditions are vague/overbroad | Government: Poulin waived challenges by not raising them previously; remand did not require findings for unchanged conditions | Court: waiver inapplicable given intervening law; vacated discretionary conditions and remanded for findings consistent with Kappes/Thompson/Armour |
| Administrative reporting/leave-district/answer-probation-officer | Poulin: these were imposed without explanation; some invade Fifth Amendment or are vague | Gov: administrative conditions may be imposed once supervised release justified | Court: administrative conditions (reporting, leave-permission) are permissible without detailed findings; encouraged clarifying scienter language but not reversible error |
| Work/notify-change-in-residence/support-dependents | Poulin: terms like “regularly,” “other family responsibilities,” and scope of employment change are vague | Gov: routine supervision needs justify these conditions | Court: vacated these specific standards for vagueness/procedural error; remand to define “regularly,” limit "other family responsibilities," and clarify notice requirement |
| Alcohol/drug ban and testing | Poulin: no record support for total alcohol ban; court abused discretion | Gov: record (prior alcohol dependence, BOP findings) supports abstention and testing | Court: upheld alcohol/drug ban here (record supports connection) and allowed testing; not an abuse of discretion |
| Association, frequenting drug places, visits by PO, third-party notifications | Poulin: vague, lack scienter, overbroad (e.g., "frequent," unlimited home visits, undefined "personal history") | Gov: conditions serve protection and monitoring goals | Court: vacated these conditions for procedural error/vagueness; directed redrafting with scienter limits and clearer scope |
| Special-treatment grouping & no-contact with female minors | Poulin: court failed to consider combined practical effect of three treatment conditions; no-contact prevents family contact and is disproportionate | Gov: Poulin waived combined-treatment challenge; no-contact is appropriate given offense and record | Court: treatment-combination challenge waived at resentencing; no-contact condition was upheld on abuse-of-discretion review but entire discretionary regime vacated for resentencing proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (district courts must provide adequate findings and avoid rote lists of conditions; some standard conditions require clearer wording)
- United States v. Armour, 804 F.3d 859 (7th Cir. 2015) (supervision conditions must relate to § 3553(a) purposes and be justified; upheld routine reporting condition)
- United States v. Thompson, 777 F.3d 368 (7th Cir. 2015) (vagueness limits on association, notification, and visit conditions; need scienter and clearer scope)
- United States v. Poulin, 745 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2015) (prior appeal: vacated original life supervised-release term and remanded for resentencing)
- United States v. Siegel, 753 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2014) (courts may reconvene defendant on eve of release to remind and reconsider conditions)
- United States v. Purham, 795 F.3d 761 (7th Cir. 2015) (intervening precedent can excuse waiver where conditions later held fatally vague)
- United States v. Falor, 800 F.3d 407 (7th Cir. 2015) (when remanding for resentencing, courts often vacate entire discretionary conditions so issues can be addressed at full resentencing)