United States v. Roy Baker, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11320

Baker was convicted of state sexual offenses in 1982 and 1983, leading to prison terms and later parole; he failed to register as a sex offender as required by law, resulting in federal charges under SORNA 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
In 2012 Baker pled guilty to traveling interstate and failing to register as a sex offender, and the district court imposed a 77-month prison term followed by a life term of supervised release and eight special conditions.
The PSR calculated a guidelines range of 33 to 41 months with a 10-year maximum, but it noted a potentially understated criminal history; it also stated an eight-condition recommended release plan.
At sentencing the judge expressed a belief the range was 5 years to life, imposed a 77-month term and life supervised release, and added eight special conditions, including an alcohol ban, internet monitoring, no contact with minors, and sex-offender treatment.
Baker challenges the life term as based on an improper guidelines range and insufficient explanation, and challenges four special conditions (and related payment provisions) as overly broad or unsupported; the government sought a longer term and broader conditions.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit vacates the supervised release term and certain conditions, remanding for resentencing with the correct range and refined conditions; the prison term and other non-challenged terms remain affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the life supervised-release term properly justified?	Baker argues the life term rests on an incorrect range and lacks adequate explanation.	The Government contends the life term is warranted given Baker's history and conduct.	Term vacated; remand for resentencing with correct 5-year range and fuller explanation.
Are special conditions 1, 3, 4, 8 and related payment provisions proper and consistent with the oral sentence?	Baker asserts these conditions are overbroad or not adequately tied to the offense and record; payment terms are unclear.	Government argues conditions are within discretion and appropriately tailored.	Condition 1 partial vacatur (alcohol/mood-altering language problematic and excessive alcohol ban); Condition 3 vacated; Condition 4 vacated; Condition 8 upheld subject to remand; payment provision vacated; remand for clarified terms.

United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2013) (reassignment of guidelines range and scope of supervised release)
United States v. Poulin, 745 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014) (requiring adequate explanation for above-guidelines sentence)
United States v. Evans, 727 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2013) (sex-offender treatment may be justified by recent or prominent conduct)
United States v. Neal, 662 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2011) (broad discretion in imposing special conditions, review for abuse of discretion; plain-error if not objected)
United States v. Zobel, 696 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2012) (no-contact/no-minor restrictions; framework for evaluating no-contact conditions)
United States v. Bonanno, 146 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 1998) (oral pronouncement controls when inconsistent with written sentence)
Jones v. United States, 635 F.3d 909 (7th Cir. 2011) (consideration of history and character in sentencing)
Tucker v. United States, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (limits on information the court may consider)
United States v. Simon, 614 F.3d 475 (8th Cir. 2010) (vacatur of broad alcohol-related conditions when vague or excessive)