context: The mere fact that the sentenced offense is not technically a sex offense "does not make the imposition of the special condition[s] inconsistent with the [Sentencing Guidelines'] policy statement." The mere fact that Dr. Miles has no history of sex offense convictions is not dispositive as to whether the sentencing court abused its discretion.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 275 Fed.Appx. 433, 442
citation_a.parenthetical: leaving open the possibility for imposing sex offender treatment and registration conditions
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Ybarra, 289 Fed.Appx. 726, 732 (5th Cir.2008) (unpublished) (noting that § 3583(d) “does not expressly prohibit the imposition of sex offender registration for offenders with no history of sex offense convictions”); United States v. Jimenez, 275 Fed.Appx. 433, 442 (5th Cir.2008) (unpublished) (leaving open the possibility for imposing sex offender treatment and registration conditions); see also United States v. Genovese, 311 Fed.Appx. 465 (2d Cir.2009) (unpublished) (affirming imposition of sex offender registration requirements in light of the defendant’s history and characteristics); United States v. Prochner, 417 F.3d 54, 63-64 (5th Cir.2005) (affirming sex offender evaluation and treatment conditions where the defendant’s journal entries and mental health evaluations supported sentencing judge’s belief that the defendant, who had no history of sex offenses, might pose a threat to children).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 417 F.3d 54, 63-64
citation_b.parenthetical: affirming sex offender evaluation and treatment conditions where the defendant's journal entries and mental health evaluations supported sentencing judge's belief that the defendant, who had no history of sex offenses, might pose a threat to children
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Ybarra, 289 Fed.Appx. 726, 732 (5th Cir.2008) (unpublished) (noting that § 3583(d) “does not expressly prohibit the imposition of sex offender registration for offenders with no history of sex offense convictions”); United States v. Jimenez, 275 Fed.Appx. 433, 442 (5th Cir.2008) (unpublished) (leaving open the possibility for imposing sex offender treatment and registration conditions); see also United States v. Genovese, 311 Fed.Appx. 465 (2d Cir.2009) (unpublished) (affirming imposition of sex offender registration requirements in light of the defendant’s history and characteristics); United States v. Prochner, 417 F.3d 54, 63-64 (5th Cir.2005) (affirming sex offender evaluation and treatment conditions where the defendant’s journal entries and mental health evaluations supported sentencing judge’s belief that the defendant, who had no history of sex offenses, might pose a threat to children).