In prosecution on receipt and possession of child pornography charges, defendant was entitled to remand for new sentencing hearing on issue regarding whether to impose any standard or special terms of supervised release, where Dist. Ct. did not make any findings to justify its imposition of certain standard and special conditions, and where certain terms of supervised release needed clarification. Specifically, Dist. Ct. on remand should: (1) clarify nature of support defendant is required to provide to family members and consider defendant’s financial ability to pay any support; (2) define requirement that defendant obtain “regular” employment; (3) define “change of employment” that would trigger defendant’s obligation to notify his probation officer; (4) clarify prohibition on defendant’s presence at places where illegal drugs are sold or presence with individuals engaged in criminal activity; (5) clarify time and frequency of probation officer visits to defendant’s home; and (6) clarify circumstances regarding defendant’s notification to others of risks associated with defendant’s criminal background. Dist. Ct. did not err, though, in imposing restrictions on defendant’s use of alcohol and banning unsupervised visits with female minors, where Dist. Ct. adequately explained links between such restrictions and instant charged offenses.