United States v. Undra Johnson, 577 F. App'x 241

In 1995 Johnson was convicted in Mississippi of a sexual offense (contact with a child) and was required to register as a sex offender.
In 2009 Johnson pled guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) (SORNA) for failing to register; he received 37 months’ imprisonment and a life term of supervised release with sex-offender-related special conditions (treatment, searches, polygraph/computer searches originally required).
Johnson did not challenge those special conditions in the 2009 proceeding (he preserved only a SORNA-related challenge on appeal and accepted the supervised-release conditions).
In 2012–2013 Johnson violated conditions of supervised release (DUI, suspended license, arrests including violent charges); his supervised release was revoked, he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, and the life term of supervised release was reimposed with most sex-offender conditions reinstated (polygraph and electronic-device search requirements removed).
Johnson objected to reimposition of the sex-offender conditions, arguing failure to register is not a sex-offense for Guidelines purposes, the conditions were not reasonably related to § 3553(a) factors, and they unduly deprived his liberty.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed for plain unreasonableness, considered procedural and substantive challenges, and affirmed the district court’s reimposition of the special conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sex-offender special conditions may be imposed/reimposed after revocation when underlying federal conviction is for failure to register under SORNA	Johnson: Failure to register is not a sex-offense under the Guidelines, so sex-offender conditions are improper	Government: District courts may impose/reimpose sex-offender conditions based on defendant’s prior sex-offense history and § 3553(a) factors	Court: Allowed—failure to register is not a Guidelines sex-offense, but courts may impose sex-offender conditions when the defendant has a prior sex conviction and the conditions are reasonably related to the § 3553(a) factors and correctional needs (Weatherton framework)
Whether reimposition was substantively unreasonable here given prior acceptance of conditions and the defendant’s record	Johnson: Reimposition is substantively unreasonable and more restrictive than necessary	Government: Reimposition is supported by Johnson’s undisputed prior sex offense, egregious facts, criminal history, and the fact he previously accepted the conditions	Court: Reimposition was not plainly unreasonable—district court considered offense, history, and characteristics and reasonably reinstated conditions the defendant had earlier accepted

United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir.) (plainly unreasonable review for revocation sentences)
United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir.) (deference to revocation sentences)
United States v. Segura, 747 F.3d 323 (5th Cir.) (failure to register is not a sex offense under § 5D1.2)
United States v. Weatherton, 567 F.3d 149 (5th Cir.) (courts may impose sex-offender conditions when defendant has prior sex-offense and must consider § 3553(a)-related factors)
United States v. Johnson, 632 F.3d 912 (5th Cir.) (appeal of the 2009 SORNA conviction; context for waiver of challenges)
United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir.) (analyzing reasonableness of sex-offender conditions after a SORNA-based conviction)