USCA11 Case: 22-12015 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/13/2023 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-12015 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF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: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12015 Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, 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: 3 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: 4 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.