Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane D. Kirstein, U .S. Attorney's Office, San Antonio, TX, Plaintiff–Appellee. Laura G. Greenberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Bradford W. Bogan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender's Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant–Appellant.
In this case, we must decide whether the district court's imposition of a condition of supervised release prohibiting the defendant from “residing or going to places where a minor or minors are known to frequent without prior approval of the probation officer” was plainly erroneous. We conclude it was not and AFFIRM.
I.
In January 1990, Michael Fields was convicted in Wisconsin state court of second degree sexual assault of a child.1 He was sentenced to five years in prison, but only served one year; the rest of his term was probated. Fields was required to register as a sex offender in Wisconsin for the rest of his life. Because of this conviction, he must also register as a sex offender in Texas. Fields has thrice been arrested and convicted for failing to register as a sex offender.2 He has also been repeatedly told by state authorities in both Wisconsin and Texas that he must register as a sex offender, instructions with which it appears he has never complied.3
Fields was arrested by the Austin Police Department for failing to register as a sex offender in April 2013. The next month, he was indicted in federal court and charged with one count of failing to register as a sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”).4 After unsuccessfully moving to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that SORNA was unconstitutional, Fields pled guilty in July 2013.
In November 2013, Fields appeared before the district court for his sentencing hearing. At that hearing, the court reviewed Fields's criminal history record, and concluded that, even discounting several convictions where it was disputed as to whether Fields committed the crime, he had “a solid criminal record since 1974.” After hearing from counsel, the court then sentenced Fields to a 27–month sentence of imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised release. The supervision included a number of conditions, including, as relevant here, a requirement that:
The defendant shall follow all other lifestyle restrictions or treatment requirements imposed by the therapist, and continue those restrictions as they pertain to avoiding risk situations throughout the course of supervision. This includes not residing or going to places where a minor or minors are known to frequent without prior approval of the probation officer.
Fields did not object to this condition. This timely appeal follows.
II.
We normally review conditions of supervised release for abuse of discretion.5 In this case, because Fields did not object to his supervised release condition while before the district court, we review for plain error.6 As the Supreme Court has made clear, plain error is a demanding standard: