Background
In 2018, in the Central District of Illinois, Jacob Daniel Lickers pleaded guilty to one count of transportation of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1) and one count of possession of child pornography under § 2252A(a)(5)(B). He received concurrent 132-month prison terms and a life term of supervised release. His supervision began in January 2025, and jurisdiction over the supervised release was transferred to the District of Colorado in October 2025 so he could live with his mother. Soon after, U.S. Probation petitioned for an arrest warrant, alleging that Lickers had been unsuccessfully discharged from his counseling program for violating supervision terms. The petition described violations including possessing a nude adult picture and sexually exploitative material, engaging in “high-risk sexual behavior,” and failing to be transparent with his treatment provider.
At the revocation hearing, Lickers was represented by counsel. The district court confirmed his competency, advised him of the rights he would waive by admitting the allegation, and warned of the possible sentencing consequences, including the advisory Guidelines range of four to ten months and the statutory maximum of two years. Lickers waived his rights, admitted the unsuccessful discharge, and his attorney stipulated to a factual basis. After hearing mitigation argument and allocution, the court revoked supervised release, imposed six months in prison, and reimposed lifetime supervised release with mandatory and special conditions.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth Circuit granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and dismissed the appeal after concluding that Lickers presented no nonfrivolous issue. Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the panel reviewed the Anders brief and the full record. Neither Lickers nor the government responded to the Anders brief.
The court rejected each potential issue identified by counsel. First, it found no nonfrivolous challenge to the revocation hearing or Lickers’s admission: the record showed compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(b), including notice, disclosure, appearance with counsel, an opportunity to present mitigation, and allocution, and the district court found the admission knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Second, reviewing Lickers’s challenge to the underlying “facts and allegations” for plain error because he admitted the violation and did not object below, the court found no error in light of the petition, the stipulated factual basis, and the absence of any objection.
Third, the court found no nonfrivolous procedural- or substantive-reasonableness challenge to the six-month sentence. Because Lickers had not raised procedural unreasonableness in the district court, review was for plain error. The panel noted that the statutory maximum was two years under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), the advisory range of four to ten months was correctly calculated under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4 for a Grade C violation and criminal-history category II, and the district court adequately explained its consideration of the Chapter 7 policy statements and the § 3553(a) factors as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). The within-range sentence was presumed reasonable, and Lickers identified nothing to rebut that presumption or show an abuse of discretion. Fourth, the court found no nonfrivolous challenge to the reimposed life term of supervised release or its conditions. The convictions permitted a supervised-release term of five years to life under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), and the special conditions—substance-abuse testing and mental-health treatment, restricted contact with minors, limited internet access, and monitoring software or hardware—were supported by the district court’s stated reasons and tied to the § 3553(a) factors and § 3583(d).
Key Takeaways
- The Tenth Circuit granted counsel’s Anders motion and dismissed the appeal after independently reviewing the record and finding no nonfrivolous issue.
- The revocation hearing satisfied Rule 32.1(b), and Lickers’s admission was supported by a competency finding, rights advisement, waiver, and stipulated factual basis.
- Because Lickers admitted the violation and did not object below, his factual challenge and procedural-reasonableness challenge were reviewed only for plain error.
- The six-month sentence fell within the correctly calculated four-to-ten-month advisory range and was presumed substantively reasonable.
- Lifetime supervised release was statutorily authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), and the special conditions were upheld as nonfrivolous to challenge because the district court tied them to § 3553(a) and § 3583(d).
Why It Matters
This decision is a straightforward example of the Tenth Circuit’s Anders procedure in a supervised-release revocation appeal: counsel identified every arguable issue, the panel reviewed the full record, and the court explained why each potential challenge was frivolous rather than merely weak. It also underscores the practical consequences of admissions and non-objection in revocation proceedings, which can narrow appellate review to plain error and make later challenges to the factual basis or sentencing procedure especially difficult.
The order is nonprecedential, but it usefully collects the governing standards for Rule 32.1 revocation hearings, Anders withdrawals, reasonableness review after revocation, and the statutory authority for lifetime supervised release in child-pornography cases.