Dist.Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 24-month term of incarceration following revocation of defendant's term of supervised release that was imposed as part of his sentence on conviction for possession of child pornography. Record showed that: (1) defendant was in possession of cell phone that contained pornographic websites and images of child pornography that violated conditions of his original term of supervised release; and (2) Dist.Ct. adequately explained instant, above-Guideline sentence, after noting that defendant was danger to community, and that maximum term was necessary to deter him. Moreover, defendant's repeated violations of his original conditions of his supervised release supported Dist. Ct.'s subsequent imposition of lifetime term of supervised release following revocation of original term of supervised release. However, remand was necessary because Dist. Ct. had failed to explain necessity of imposing certain conditions of defendant's now lifetime term of supervised release, and because challenged conditions were neither included in revocation petition nor read aloud at hearing.
