November 3, 2016
from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin. No. 12-cr-00100 - William M. Conley,
Bauer, Manion, and Hamilton, Circuit Judges.
Manion, Circuit Judge.
Raney appeals for the second time the district court's
decision to impose an additional two-year term of supervised
release after revoking his previous release term. We vacated
Raney's initial sentence because the district court did
not provide any justification for the length of the
supervised release term. On remand, the court has adequately
explained its decision. Raney has also waived his challenge
to the supervised release condition to which he objects.
Therefore, we affirm.
2001, Kenneth Raney was convicted of transportation of a
minor with intent to engage in a sexual act and attempt to
manufacture child pornography. The district court sentenced
him to a term of 145 months' imprisonment, which ended on
February 10, 2012. Thereafter, he began serving three years
of supervised release.
midway through his release term, the district court found
that he had violated the terms of that release by possessing
a memory stick and maintaining contact with a convicted felon
without his probation officer's consent. The court warned
Raney that any future violations would result in revocation
of his supervised release.
was back in court a year later. At this revocation hearing,
the district court found that he had violated his supervised
release conditions in several ways. These included taking
several unauthorized day trips with a female acquaintance and
her two minor children. All told, Raney had about four months
of access to minors without the knowledge of his probation
officer. This time, the district court revoked his supervised
release and sentenced him to nine months' imprisonment
followed by another two years of supervised release.
appeal, we affirmed the district court's revocation
decision, but vacated the sentence. Because the district
court did not explain its decision to impose two years of
supervised release, we were "unable to review the
propriety of the district court's decision."
Raney I, 797 F.3d at 467. Although we found that the
district court had "arguably justified its selection of
the nine month term of imprisonment/' we vacated the
entire sentence and remanded for resentencing in light of our
remand, the district court imposed the same sentence. Because
Raney's term of imprisonment had already ended by the
time of his resentencing hearing, the sole effect of the
resentencing was to reinstate the two years of supervised
release under the same conditions as before. Raney once again
challenges the procedural soundness of his sentence. He also
appeals the imposition of a condition of supervised release
that requires him to "notify third parties of risks that
may be occasioned by [his] criminal record or personal
history or characteristics."
review of a sentence for violating a term of supervised
release is highly deferential, and we will uphold that term
unless it is 'plainly unreasonable.'" United
States v. Jones, 774 F.3d 399, 403 (7th Cir. 2014)
(quoting United States v. Kizeart,505 F.3d 672, 674
(7th Cir. 2007)). We require only that the district court
"say something that enables [us] to infer that
[it] considered" the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines policy
statements and the 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) &
3583(e) sentencing factors. United States v. Ford,798 F.3d 655, 663 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States
v. Robertson,648 F.3d 858, 859-60 (7th Cir. 2011)). The
district court "need not consider the Section 3553
factors in check-list form." Id. (quoting
Jones, 774 F.3d at 404). Nor must it make specific