United States v. Shannon
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2948
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ralph Shannon pled guilty to possession of child pornography, was sentenced to 46 months imprisonment and a lifetime of supervised release.
- While on supervised release, Shannon admitted connecting a web camera to his computer without prior permission; probation alleged he also accessed websites with domains suggesting teenage models.
- The government proceeded only on the webcam violation at the revocation hearing because it could not confirm ages from the websites; the court found a violation and revoked supervised release.
- The district court sentenced Shannon to 28 days’ imprisonment (below Guidelines) and reinstated supervised release, adding Special Condition No. 10: a lifetime ban on possession of any material containing “sexually explicit conduct” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2).
- Special Condition No. 10 was broad: it encompassed adult pornography and non-visual depictions; it was not discussed or justified at the hearing and Shannon did not have notice that such a condition was being considered.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated Special Condition No. 10 and remanded because the district court made no findings or explanation tying a lifetime, across-the-board ban on legally protected adult sexual material to Shannon’s offense or the goals of supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court permissibly imposed Special Condition No. 10 (ban on all materially depicting “sexually explicit conduct”) | Shannon: ban is not reasonably related to his offense, covers lawful adult materials, and was imposed without adequate findings or notice | Government: the record supports a broad ban because Shannon sought sites depicting underage-looking models and the court warned about child pornography | Vacated — condition struck and remanded for further proceedings because the court gave no findings connecting a lifetime ban on all sexually explicit materials (including legal adult material) to Shannon’s offense or supervision goals |
| Standard of review for failure to object to a condition imposed at sentencing | Shannon: he lacked notice/opportunity to object so review should be for abuse of discretion | Government: absence of objection warrants plain-error review; court asked if parties had anything further after imposing condition | Court avoided resolving the standards tension but ruled the condition fails under either plain-error or abuse-of-discretion review |
| Whether a condition banning non-visual depictions is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad | Shannon: the statutory definition referenced covers non-visual conduct and is unclear what possession covers | Government: relied on concern about access to sites with underage-appearing models | Court: condition ambiguous (may reach non-visual materials), and breadth raises First Amendment concerns; lack of limiting findings made upholding it improper |
| Whether lifetime ban on legal adult pornography can ever be justified | Shannon: lifetime ban on legal material requires clear connection to risk of reoffense and explicit findings | Government: cites circuits that have upheld such bans when treatment experts or record showed connection | Court: such bans may be permissible with record support, but absent findings here the lifetime ban was unjustified and must be vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Musso v. United States, 643 F.3d 566 (7th Cir.) (standard for preserved objections)
- Evans v. United States, 727 F.3d 730 (7th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for preserved challenges to new conditions)
- Goodwin v. United States, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.) (framework for reviewing special conditions of supervised release)
- Adkins v. United States, 743 F.3d 176 (7th Cir.) (vacating a vague and overbroad ban on pornography and sexually stimulating material)
- Angle v. United States, 598 F.3d 352 (7th Cir.) (upholding limited internet restrictions where tied to offense conduct)
- Voelker v. United States, 489 F.3d 139 (3d Cir.) (vacating broad ban on all sexually explicit material where record lacked nexus to offense)
- Brigham v. United States, 569 F.3d 220 (5th Cir.) (upholding ban on pornographic materials where treatment testimony linked adult material to risk)
- Simmons v. United States, 343 F.3d 72 (2d Cir.) (affirming pornography ban where defendant’s videotapes connected viewing to offenses)
- Daniels v. United States, 541 F.3d 915 (9th Cir.) (upholding broad restrictions where defendant’s conduct showed nexus to illegal behavior)
- Crandon v. United States, 173 F.3d 122 (3d Cir.) (affirming internet restriction tied to prior internet-facilitated sexual offenses)
- Perazza-Mercado v. United States, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir.) (finding an unexplained broad pornography ban plainly erroneous)
- Bartlett v. United States, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir.) (post-sentencing complaints treated as exceptions; plain-error review)
- Brown v. United States, 662 F.3d 457 (7th Cir.) (reviewing unobjected-to fines under plain-error standard)
- Courtland v. United States, 642 F.3d 545 (7th Cir.) (reviewing for abuse of discretion where record lacked notice of court action)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing courts must adequately explain chosen sentence for meaningful appellate review)