United States v. Goodwin

• Decision Date: 08 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12–2921.,12–2921.
• Citation: 717 F.3d 511
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Charles GOODWIN, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

717 F.3d 511

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Charles GOODWIN, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 12–2921.

United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.

Argued Jan. 15, 2013.
Decided May 8, 2013.

[717 F.3d 513]

Linda L. Mullen (argued), Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Rock Island, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

Daniel T. Hansmeier (argued), Attorney, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Springfield, IL, for Defendant–Appellant.

Before POSNER, WOOD, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

TINDER, Circuit Judge.

Charles Goodwin pleaded guilty to knowingly failing to register and update a registration as a sex offender, as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). He was sentenced to 27 months' imprisonment, to be followed by a life term of supervised release, subject to ten special conditions. Goodwin claims that the relevant SORNA provision is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority; argues that the district court committed plain error by miscalculating his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range for supervised release and then imposing a sentence within that miscalculated range; and challenges four conditions of his supervised release. We find his nondelegation claim unpersuasive, and therefore affirm his conviction. We further hold that the erroneous calculation of the advisory Guidelines range and the imposition of special conditions without explanation by the district court or support in the record warrant vacating his sentence and remanding to the district court for resentencing.

I. Background A. Goodwin's History & Current Offense

In 1994, Goodwin pleaded no contest to a charge of an attempted lewd and lascivious act in the presence of a child. Although the full extent of the conduct supporting the charge is now in dispute, it suffices to say for the purposes of this appeal that Goodwin concedes that he did not contest the charge.¹ Goodwin received

[717 F.3d 514]

a noncustodial sentence of three months' community control (a Florida program under which offenders are geographically constrained) and three years' probation.

Unbeknownst to Goodwin at the time, this light sentence was only the beginning of his self-inflicted troubles. In December 2006, he was convicted of failure to register as a sex offender in Douglas County (Illinois) Circuit Court. On August 27, 2007, Goodwin registered as a sex offender in Illinois, listing as his residence a homeless shelter in Champaign. Staff at this shelter did not observe Goodwin there after September 17. By October 2, Goodwin had moved to Florida, where he registered as a sex offender on that date. He was notified by Florida authorities that he was required to re-register in April 2008, but failed to do so. He was arrested in Florida in July 2008 for this failure to register. While in state custody, he registered as a sex offender and was notified that he was required to reregister in October 2008.

Goodwin moved from Florida to Illinois in September 2008. Having left the state—or fled, according to his ex-wife—Goodwin failed to appear at an October 15 court date stemming from his earlier failure to register in Florida. He also failed to re-register that month in Florida, as required under Florida law. He further failed to register in Illinois following his move, running afoul both of Illinois's sex-offender-registry law and of SORNA, which makes it a felony for a sex offender knowingly to fail to register following an interstate move, 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).

Goodwin was arrested in Vermilion County, Illinois, on June 29, 2011. On July 13, a federal grand jury returned an indictment alleging that he was required to register under SORNA based on his 1994 conviction, but knowingly failed to do so when he traveled from Florida to Illinois in September 2008 and thereafter. Goodwin pleaded guilty on April 25, 2012.

Following Goodwin's guilty plea, a probation officer prepared his Presentencing Report. The probation officer classified Goodwin's offense level as 10 and his criminal history category as V, leading to a Guidelines range of 21 to 27 months' imprisonment. The officer then stated that the Guidelines advised a period of supervised release of five years to life, citing U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b)(2) & (c). The Presentencing Report did not include recommendations regarding either any mandatory or special conditions related to the recommended period of supervised release.

On August 16, the district court sentenced Goodwin to 27 months' imprisonment, to be followed by a life term of supervised release. In reaching this sentence, the district court considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Specifically, the court considered Goodwin's criminal history, particularly his repeated disregard of sex-offender-registration laws, but also noted that his difficult childhood and history of drug use and mental health issues provided some mitigation. The district court also imposed ten special conditions on Goodwin's period of supervised release. The following four conditions are at issue in this appeal:

Condition 4: You shall participate with the U.S. Probation Office's Computer and Internet Monitoring Program.... You shall install filtering software on any computer you possess or use, which will monitor and block access to sexually oriented website[s]. You shall allow the probation officer unannounced access to any computer you possess or use to verify that the filtering

[717 F.3d 515]

software is functional.... You shall submit to the search of your person, automobile, and property under your control by the probation officer. You shall allow the probation officer to conduct periodic, unannounced examinations of your computer equipment ... which may include retrieval and copying of all data from your device ... or removal of such equipment for the purpose of conducting a more thorough inspection.

Condition 5: You shall have no contact with any person under the age of 18 except in the presence of a responsible adult who is aware of the nature of your background and current offense, and who has been approved by the probation officer.

Condition 6: You shall neither possess nor have under your control any material, legal or illegal, that contains nudity or that depicts or alludes to sexual activity or depicts sexually arousing material....

Condition 7: You shall not receive or transmit any sexually arousing material, including child pornography, via the internet, nor visit any website ... containing any sexually arousing material, including child pornography.

The district court did not discuss its reasons for imposing these special conditions. Immediately after stating the conditions, the court asked Goodwin a question concerning an unrelated topic. Neither party objected to the imposition of these conditions.

B. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act

Since one of the issues in this appeal concerns the constitutionality of SORNA, we provide a brief overview of the relevant sections of this statute and applicable regulations. Congress enacted SORNA in 2006 as part of a larger bill, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act (“the Adam Walsh Act”), Pub.L. No. 109–248, 120 Stat. 587, aimed at establishing national standards for sex-offender registration programs. 42 U.S.C. §§ 16911–16929. In the introductory section to the law, Congress stated that SORNA's purpose is “to protect the public from sex offenders ... and respon[d] to the vicious attacks by violent predators.” 42 U.S.C. § 16901. With this purpose in mind, Congress “establish[ed] a comprehensive national system for the registration of those offenders.” Id. Offenders must update their registration in this new registration system within three days of any change in name, residence, employer, or student status. 42 U.S.C. § 16913(c). SORNA also makes it a felony for a covered offender to travel in interstate or foreign commerce and knowingly fail to register or update his or her registration. 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).

SORNA grants the Attorney General the “authority to specify the applicability of the [registration] requirements ... to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of [SORNA].” 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d). Beyond this general grant of authority, the statute contains no provision that provides guidance to the Attorney General regarding what factors to consider in making this determination.

In February 2007, the Attorney General issued an interim regulation, pursuant to his authority under § 16913(d), which applied SORNA's registration requirements to all pre-enactment sex offenders. 72 F.R. 8894, 8897. The Attorney General made this regulation permanent in July 2007. 73 F.R. 38063.

II. Analysis

Goodwin presents three issues on appeal. First, he renews his constitutional

[717 F.3d 516]

objection to 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)—which, again, grants the Attorney General the discretion to prosecute for failure to register under SORNA offenders whose convictions predate the enactment of SORNA—as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the executive branch. Second, he argues that the district court's miscalculation of the advisory Guidelines range for his term of supervised release constitutes plain error. Third, he claims that Conditions 4 through 7 are not reasonably related to his failure-to-register offense, involve a greater deprivation of liberty than is necessary, and violate the First Amendment. We address these arguments in turn.

A. The Constitutionality of SORNA

Goodwin claims that the provision of SORNA under which he was convicted violates nondelegation principles and therefore is unconstitutional. We review the constitutionality of a federal statute de novo. United States v. Hausmann, 345 F.3d 952, 958 (7th Cir.2003). A delegation is “constitutionally sufficient if Congress clearly delineates [1] the general policy, [2] the public agency which is to apply it, and [3] the boundaries of this delegated authority.” Am. Power & Light Co. v. SEC,...