United States v. Medina, 779 F.3d 55

Background

Medina, previously convicted in Indiana (2008) of sexual battery of a minor, moved to Puerto Rico in 2012 without registering as a sex offender and was charged under SORNA, 18 U.S.C. § 2250.
He pled guilty to the SORNA offense and was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment plus 20 years of supervised release.
The supervised-release order included two contested special conditions: a broad ban on pornography/sexually stimulating materials and a requirement to submit to penile plethysmograph (PPG) testing if his sex-offender treatment program required it.
Medina objected to the supervised-release term length and to both special conditions; the district court adopted the presentence report’s guidelines calculation and imposed the conditions with minimal on‑the‑record justification.
The First Circuit found the guidelines classification error (treating a SORNA failure‑to‑register as a "sex offense") and held the district court provided inadequate, case‑specific justification for the pornography ban and the PPG condition.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper length of supervised release (20 years)	Medina: SORNA failure‑to‑register is not a "sex offense" under the Sentencing Guidelines; recommended range is 5 years to 5 years (statutory min)	Gov't: district court’s guidelines classification; asks for plain‑error review but concedes the issue	Court: district court erred in classifying SORNA offense as a "sex offense"; plain error; vacated and remanded for resentencing on supervised release length
Blanket ban on pornography/sexually stimulating material	Medina: ban is overbroad and court failed to provide a reasoned, case‑specific justification tying the ban to recidivism risk or § 3553(a) factors	Gov't: condition reasonable to reduce recidivism; record permitted inference; cites treatment/compliance interests	Court: vacated pornography ban—Perazza‑Mercado controls; no evidence linking legal adult pornography to Medina’s offense and district court gave no adequate on‑the‑record justification
Requirement to submit to PPG testing if treatment program orders it	Medina: PPG is highly invasive, of disputed reliability, and the district court failed to make the required defendant‑specific findings; facial challenge preserved	Gov't: challenge premature or facially meritless because PPG is widely used in treatment and condition contingent on program rules	Court: PPG condition facially unreasonable on this record; district court failed to make the required on‑the‑record, defendant‑specific evidentiary findings about necessity, efficacy, and alternatives; vacated and remanded

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.) (guidance that SORNA failure is not a guidelines "sex offense")
Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines are advisory; correct calculation required for sentencing review)
United States v. Millán‑Isaac, 749 F.3d 57 (1st Cir.) (proper guidelines calculation prerequisite to discretionary sentencing)
United States v. Perazza‑Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir.) (vacating a total pornography ban for lack of case‑specific justification)
United States v. Weber, 451 F.3d 552 (9th Cir.) (PPG testing is exceptionally intrusive; requires heightened justification under § 3583(d))
United States v. McLaurin, 731 F.3d 258 (2d Cir.) (PPG testing implicates significant dignity interests; district court must make detailed, defendant‑specific findings)
United States v. Sebastian, 612 F.3d 47 (1st Cir.) (facially unreasonable standard for contingent treatment‑related conditions and distinction for conditional program‑compliance bans)
United States v. Davis, 242 F.3d 49 (1st Cir.) (challenge to explicitly stated contingent condition is ripe)
United States v. York, 357 F.3d 14 (1st Cir.) (upholding polygraph condition; discusses limits of facial challenges to contingent conditions)
United States v. Ramos, 763 F.3d 45 (1st Cir.) (distinguishing and applying Perazza‑Mercado in pornography‑ban context)