United States v. James, No. 14-2756 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 1979, James pleaded guilty to having sexual intercourse with a four-year-old girl. James was declared to be a sexual psychopath and placed in a hospital sexual psychopathy program. James admitted that he sexually abused his children and nephews, that he sexually abused a six-year-old girl when he was 17 years old, and that he sexually abused a 13-year-old girl while in his twenties. Hospital staff believed that James's dependence on alcohol exacerbated his deviance. In 1985, James left the program short of completion. The court revoked his suspended sentence and sentenced James to prison. James was paroled in 1988 and began a sexual relationship with a mentally handicapped woman. They had a child. James was convicted twice in 1995 for failing to register as a sex offender. James and his family moved to Arkansas in 2013. James last registered as a sex offender in 2012, in California. James pleaded guilty to failing to register, 18 U.S.C. 2250, as is required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 42 U.S.C. 16901, and was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment and lifetime supervised release. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the term and certain conditions, but vacated a condition prohibiting access to the internet, or any device capable of accessing the internet.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Loken, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court adequately supported its decision to impose lifetime supervision based on the need to protect the public and defendant's history, mental condition, sexual deviation, and severe alcoholism; the lifetime supervision provision was not substantively unreasonable; Special Condition 6 concerning a ban on internet access was not supported by the record and the government concedes it should be vacated; Special Condition 1 concerning searches is expressly allowed by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(d) and is affirmed; Special Condition 2 concerning treatment and testing for substance abuse was justified by defendant's history of alcohol and drug abuse; Special Condition 3 regarding mental health or sex offender treatment was justified by his history, failure to complete prior treatment and the need to protect the public; Special Condition 5 regarding contact with minors was justified by defendant's history and the need to protect minors; there were discrepancies between the oral pronouncement of the special conditions and the written judgment and the matter is remanded to permit the district court to harmonize the terms of its oral sentence and written judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.