USA v. Scott Russell Granden

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-12015
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SCOTT RUSSELL GRANDEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cr-00151-SCJ-LTW-1
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12015 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2023 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12015
Before R OSENBAUM, J ILL PRYOR , and B RASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Scott Granden was drunk on a plane when he engaged in
unwanted sexual contact with a female passenger next to him. Dur-
ing the flight, Granden placed his hand on her thigh, touched her
groin area, kissed her neck, and slapped her buttocks—all without
her consent. Granden was arrested when his flight landed, and he
later pleaded guilty to one count of abusive sexual contact aboard
an aircraft under 18 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The district court sentenced
him to twenty-one months’ imprisonment followed by one year of
supervised release and imposed several special conditions during
his year of supervised release, including:
• Plethysmograph testing (condition 6);
• Periodic polygraph examinations (condition 7);
• Prohibition on viewing or possessing any “visual de-
piction” of “sexually explicit conduct,” as defined in
18 U.S.C. § 2256 (condition 8);
• Prohibition on possessing children’s clothing, toys, or
games unless approved by his probation officer (ex-
cept for biological children) (condition 9);
• No contact with any child under eighteen unless ap-
proved by his probation officer (except for biological
children) (condition 10);
USCA11 Case: 22-12015 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2023 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

22-12015 Opinion of the Court 3
• No dating or marrying anyone who has children un-
der eighteen unless approved by his probation officer
(except for biological children) (condition 11);
• No engaging in an occupation or volunteer work that
would allow access to children under eighteen unless
approved by his probation officer (condition 13);
• No patronizing adult entertainment establishments
(condition 14);
• No travel to any place where children under eighteen
are likely to congregate unless approved by his proba-
tion officer (conditions 15 and 16).
Granden objected, arguing that these special conditions
were not justified by his offense conduct, personal characteristics,
or criminal history. The district court overruled the objection with-
out explanation, and Granden timely appealed.
Granden argues that the district court erred by (1) imposing
special conditions of supervisory release that were not reasonably
related to the purposes of sentencing and (2) failing to state the rea-
sons for the special conditions. The government agrees that many
of the special conditions are unjustified and that the district court
erred by failing to articulate reasons for any of the special condi-
tions of supervised release.
When a defendant raises nonfrivolous objections to a sen-
tence, the district court should “explain why [it] has rejected those
USCA11 Case: 22-12015 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2023 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12015
arguments.”
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007). A terse
explanation may suffice.
See id. But, at a minimum, a district court
“must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for mean-
ingful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sen-
tencing.”
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007).
Here, the district court gave no explanation for overruling
Granden’s objection to the special conditions of supervised release
or for imposing them in the first place. As the government notes,
many of the special conditions are plainly directed at regulating
Granden’s contact with children, even though Granden’s crime
was against an adult woman and he has no history of crimes against
children. It is possible that some of the special conditions are con-
sistent with the purposes of sentencing. But the district court did
not explain why it believed they were justified, and the govern-
ment agrees that we cannot affirm a district court’s unexplained
sentencing decision in this circumstance.
Accordingly, we VACATE the special conditions on
Granden’s term of supervised release and REMAND for resentenc-
ing consistent with this opinion.
USCA11 Case: 22-12015 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2023 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --