By: Derek Hawkins//August 18, 2015//
Criminal
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and ROVNER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges
Revocation – Resentencing
No. 14-3265 United States of America v. Kenneth Raney
District court revocation of appellant extended supervision valid, but failure to provide explanation for selection of conditions of supervised release called results in resentencing.
“The court arguably justified its selection of the nine month term of imprisonment. See United States v. Phillips, 2015 WL 3937527, *3, — F.3d — (7th Cir. 2015) (court’s comments justifying within-guidelines sentence sufficient where court correctly calculated guidelines range and noted the relevant statutory factors supporting the sentence). And as we noted in Phillips, to the extent that Raney argues that the list of factors in section 3583(e) is exclusive, he is mistaken. — F.3d at —, 2015 WL 3937527 at *2. A district court may consider the factors listed in other subsections of section 3553(a) even though those factors are not mentioned in § 3583(e), so long as the court relies primarily on the factors listed in § 3583(e). — F.3d at —, 2015 WL 3937527 at *2. But “[w]hen a sentence consists of more than one form of punishment, such as prison, a fine, restitution, and supervised release, and one of the forms is as in this case altered by the appellate court, it cannot be assumed that the others should be unaffected.” United States v. Downs, 784 F.3d 1180, 1182 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Kappes, 782 F.3d at 866-67; Thompson, 777 F.3d at 382). We therefore vacate the entire sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with this opinion. On remand, the court should apply our recent decisions addressing the problem of unjustified, vague or inappropriate conditions of supervised release. See United States v. Sandidge, 784 F.3d 1055, 1067-1069 (7th Cir. 2015); Kappes, 782 F.3d at 847-863; Thompson, 777 F.3d at 373-82. Many years have passed since Raney was first sentenced and the court first ordered the conditions governing his supervised release. The court and the probation office now have considerable experience understanding the challenges involved in supervising Raney. The conditions of supervised release may now be tailored to address those challenges as well as other issues the district court deems necessary after considering the factors set forth in section 3583(e).”
Affirmed in part. Vacated and Remanded in Part