United States v. Charles Clark
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Defendant Charles Ray Clark appeals from the district court’s imposition of lifetime supervised release and a special condition of supervised release, following his conviction by guilty plea for possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (a)(4)(B). We affirm in part, vacate the sentence in part, and remand.
1. The district court did not err procedurally in imposing lifetime supervision. Clark’s counsel specifically requested lifetime supervision. Moreover, the policy statement accompanying the Sentencing Guidelines recommends lifetime supervision for sex offenses, including possession of child pornography. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b). When imposing a recommended sentence, a sentencing court need only “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmak-ing authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 , 127 S.Ct. 2456 , 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Here, the district court provided a reasoned basis sufficient to demonstrate that it had considered the parties’ arguments and that it had exercised its authority properly.