By: Derek Hawkins//September 8, 2015//
Criminal
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Officials: BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges
Pleas & Sentencing – Conditions of Supervision
No. 14-1369 United States of America v. Robert D. Falor
No. 14-1603 United States of America v. Michael Richard Jines
District court failure to make finding in support of discretionary conditions imposed on appellants is not a harmless error.
“We agree that the district courts committed procedural error in imposing discretionary conditions of supervised release without considering the § 3553(a) factors and explaining why those factors supported the imposition of the conditions. This court has stressed the importance of justifying the conditions and length of supervised release at sentencing by providing anadequate statement of reasons, reasonably related to the applicable § 3553(a) factors, because this practice allows for meaningful appellate review. See Kappes, 782 F.3d at 845; Thompson, 777 F.3d at 373. Although a sentencing court need not address every factor “in checklist fashion, explicitly articulating its conclusions regarding each one,” United States v. Shannon, 518 F.3d 494, 496 (7th Cir. 2008), a “rote statement” will not always suffice, United States v. Starko, 735 F.3d 989, 992 (7th Cir. 2013). When it comes to discretionary conditions of supervised release, “‘[s]pecial’ conditions often require more justification than ‘standard’ conditions—but not always—and a condition’s label in the guidelines is ultimately irrelevant.” Kappes, 782 F.3d at 846. “All discretionary conditions, whether standard, special or of the judge’s own invention, require findings.” Id. (emphasis in original). This rule is subject to a harmless error analysis on appellate review. United States v. Siegal, 753 F.3d 705, 713 (7th Cir. 2014).”
Remanded for resentencing