U.S. v. Benhoff

Dist. Ct. erred in imposing as special terms of defendant’s supervised release prohibitions on defendant’s possession of sexually stimulating material, as well as his having contact with minors, as part of his sentence on charge of transportation and shipping of child pornography. Instant prohibitions were overly broad, and Dist. Ct. on remand must define what materials are “sexually stimulating” so as to not block defendant’s access to protected speech. Moreover, Dist. Ct. failed to explain why no-contact ban with respect to minors was necessary in defendant’s case.