Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-4412
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Beckley.
Irene C. Berger,
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00134-1)
Argued:
Decided:
April 2, 2015
of
child
pornography
in
violation
of
18
U.S.C.
now
whether,
appeals.
given
the
The
question
facts
of
presented
this
case,
to
this
court
is
term
of
lifetime
Virginia
Internet
determined
that
contained
several
peer-to-peer
Crimes
computer
child
software
Against
near
the
Task
Beckley,
West
videos
accessed
pornography
that
Children
Task
Force
was
Force,
Virginia,
through
monitoring.
search,
Sergeant
Eldridge
discovered
several
files
after
being
advised
of
his
constitutional
view,
and
then
delete
images,
and
then
return
to
computer,
viewing
at
although
the
time
only
of
42
the
were
search.
actively
In
the
accessible
for
course
his
of
of
prepubescent
the
minors
images
engaged
found
in
by
investigators
sexual
acts,
were
of
exhibition
of
for
knowing
receipt
and
knowing
possession
of
child
of
child
2252A(a)(5)(B)
imprisonment
under
pornography
and
in
violation
2252A(b)(2).
the
statute
is
The
ten
of
18
maximum
years.
See
U.S.C.
term
18
of
U.S.C.
presentence
investigation
report,
prepared
by
the
the
sentencing
statutory
Guidelines
maximum
hearing.
and
See
walked
calculations.
As
J.A.
the
the
168-72.
It
defendant
trial
judge
noted
through
explained,
the
the
a
masochistic
conduct.
Lastly,
five-level
enhancement
was
three-level
reduction
4
for
acceptance
of
calculation
included
in
the
presentence
report,
and
circumstances
of
Heltons
offense.
She
also
the
conclusion
defendant
to
departure
from
of
term
the
of
his
60
Guidelines
statement,
months
range,
the
court
imprisonment,
and
sentenced
a
lifetime
downward
term
of
II.
This court reviews a sentence imposed by a district court
for reasonableness. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220,
261 (2005). Sentencing is the province of the district court and
in reviewing the chosen sentence, we consider only whether the
sentencing judge abused her discretion rather than whether this
court
would
impose
the
same
sentence
on
defendant
in
the
though
the
Sentencing
Guidelines
are
now
advisory,
account
when
sentencing.
Booker,
543
U.S.
at
264.
sentence,
of
the
especially
Sentencing
explaining
Guideline
why
range
[any]
better
sentence
serves
the
contends
that
his
lifetime
term
of
supervised
not
adequately
explain
why
it
chose
that
particular
range
carefully
at
the
sentencing
hearing,
during
J.A.
parties
158.
at
The
court
sentencing
considered
concerning
the
arguments
3553(a)
made
by
factors
both
and
of
the
offense
and
would
criminal
conduct
in
the
deter
future.
[Helton]
from
Id.
206.
at
of
the
fact
that
[he
would]
be
required
to
be
on
with
the
downward
departure
for
the
term
of
judge
also
factors
gave
that,
full
she
and
fair
explained,
consideration
require
the
to
court
the
to
offense,
the
history
and
characteristics
of
the
the
court
assessment,
must
it
base
need
the
not
sentence
on
robotically
an
tick
judge
took
note
of
both
individual
characteristics
of
the
that
Helton
was
only
21
years
old
and
appearing
child
in
determining
the
need
for
this
sentence
to
files
of
child
pornography
were
located
in
active
the
judge
considerations
took
into
in
shaping
account
the
number
conditions
of
that
future
substance
abuse,
id.
at
200,
she
required
him
to
recommendations,
and
take
all
medications
as
in
this
defendant
to
information
something
particular
carte
unless
[such
as
case,
blanche
there
a
she
afford
is
some
computer
or
declined
access
to
to
his
indication
that
cell
phone
with
require
financial
there
is
internet
also
declined
to
impose
condition
preventing
the
in
this
case
that
the
11
defendant
took
pornographic
Guidelines
range
and
within
the
permissible
statutory
court
satisfactorily
explained
both
pieces
of
the
with
what
district
courts
sentence
as
the
district
thorough
whole
and
court
explanation
the
12
term
did
here.
sufficient
of
We
find
the
on
both
the
supervised
release
specifically.
To
require
more
explanation
would
unnecessarily
intrude upon the district courts primary and unique role in the
sentencing process.
B.
Helton also contends that his lifetime term of supervised
release is substantively unreasonable because it is longer than
necessary to further the goals of supervised release itself and
was not justified by Heltons offense. See Appellants Br. at
12.
We
disagree.
authorized
range.
by
See
lifetime
statute
18
and
U.S.C.
term
of
within
3583(k)
supervised
the
release
Sentencing
([T]he
Guidelines
authorized
is
term
of
. . . 2252A .
5D1.2
release . . .
([T]he
length
of
the
term
of
supervised
offense.).
Furthermore,
specifically
included
Guidelines
Manual
Sentencing
Commission
an
that
the
U.S.
advisory
suggests
that
in
policy
it
the
Sentencing
is
case
statement
the
of
Commission
judgment
sex
in
the
of
the
offenses
the
v.
([J]udges
United
may
States,
exercise
133
S.
Ct.
sentencing
13
2151,
2163
discretion
n.6
(2013)
through
an
404
considered
U.S.
the
pornography,
443,
446
defendants
his
admitted
(1972)).
Here,
lengthy
history
repetitive
the
district
judge
viewing
child
of
pattern
of
downloading
material, deleting it, and seeking out more. She also considered
that he admitted to abusing a three-year old when he was a minor
in foster care and that he had sought help for his compulsion to
view child pornography but had been unable to stop.
Furthermore,
the
district
court
granted
defendant
imprisonment
Moreover,
the
below
court
the
recommended
modified
the
Guidelines
conditions
of
range.
supervised
petition
of
for
supervised
modification
release
at
any
or
time
termination
after
one
year
his
of
term
of
supervised
interest
of
n.5.
5D1.2
district
justice.
Given
courts
See
these
18
U.S.C.
circumstances,
conclusion
unreasonable
3583(e)(1);
we
that
cannot
a
U.S.S.G.
find
the
lifetime
of
was
abused
substantively
in
or
manner
that
procedurally
would
render
this
unreasonable.
The
15
with
no
sexually
prior
criminal
abused
by
his
convictions,
stepfather,
who
who
was
grew
physically
up
in
and
multiple
foster care homes since the age of six, and who was caught with
42 image files of child pornography on his computer. 1
206. 2
J.A. 195,
The
and
district
in
court
displayed
crafting
an
courage
in
varying
appropriate,
individualized
sentence
60
sentence.
I.
The
district
court
chose
of
months
of
Heltons
knowing
possession
of
child
pornography
in
Helton
punishment
sufficient
to
meet
the
goals
of
sentencing.
As is well known, reasonableness includes both procedural
and substantive components.
F.3d
325,
328
(4th
Cir.
Procedural
errors
include
individualized
assessment
based
on
the
facts
presented.
magnify,
the
crime
and
the
punishment
to
ensue.
the
human
failings
the
district
court
took
into
J.A. 195.
problems.
J.A.
195.
When
Helton
was
six
years
old,
his
195.
Both
were
placed
with
to
foster
pornography.
care,
aunt
J.A. 195.
where
J.A. 195.
an
he
was
who
drank
and
found
viewing
child
J.A. 195.
When
moved
to
Methodist
facility
Services,
Burlington,
Fairmont
Helton
State
completing
the
and
called
things
obtained
College.
first
the
J.A.
semester,
Burlington
started
his
J.A. 195.
GED
to
even
He
however,
look
and
195-97.
United
and
up;
Next,
Family
while
at
enrolled
in
withdrew
at
the
J.A. 196-7.
before
age
of
He became
J.A. 196-97.
is
against
this
backdrop
that
the
district
court
told he had
Without any
graduated
college and
unwarranted
disparities
in
sentencing
of
defendants
of
his
engaging
in
repetitive
cycles
of
downloading,
a
is
sentence
not
of
incarceration
necessary
to
meet
the
longer
goals
than
of
60
months
sentencing,
The
to
treatment,
court
further
provide
leading
considered
. . .
to
the
medical
special
the
care
need
for
and
corrective
conditions
of
th[e]
release
is
no
courts
doubt
that
this
painstaking
explanation,
recollection
following
of
the
Heltons
II.
Heltons appeal of the substantive reasonableness of his
lifetime term of supervised release is a closer question.
As
discretion in sentencing.
abuse
of
that
discretion
has
occurred.
In
reviewing
States
v.
Montes-Pineda,
F.3d
375,
378
(4th
Cir.
to
meet
2006).
Heltons
burden
on
appeal
is
difficult
one
the
authorized
3583(k).
advisory
by
Guidelines
statute.
See
range
and
U.S.S.G
the
maximum
5D1.2;
18
term
U.S.C.
abused
child
child
pornography
and
after
who
furthermore
having
completed
reverted
years
J.A. 195.
to
of
While
from
further
crimes
21
of
the
defendant,
id.
3553(a)(2)(C).
fair to say that Helton will benefit not from more time in
prison, but from long-term supervision and compliance with drug
dependency and psychosexual treatment programs.
Therefore, even
Guidelines
as
irrefutable
we
tend
to
give
challenge
to
sentence
as
substantively
To the
applied,
can
easily
generate
unreasonable
results.
United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 188 (2d Cir. 2010).
For
minor
child.
online,
arranges
meeting,
and
actually
abuses
the
offenders.
This
is
because
several
of
the
2G2.2
See, e.g.,
in
2G2.2
offenders.).
are
of
little
use
in
distinguishing
between
23
in penalty
ranges
[that]
are
too
severe
for
some
United
States v. Grober, 624 F.3d 592, 608 (3d Cir. 2010); see also id.
([T]o say that the final product is the result of Commission
data,
study,
Congress
has
and
been
expertise
simply
particularly
ignores
active
in
the
facts.).
directing
the
unprecedented
Thus,
like
pornography
the
step
of
former
Guideline
directly
crack
do[es]
amending
cocaine
not
Guidelines. 7
the
Guidelines,
exemplify
the
the
child
Commissions
we
should
be
cautious
of
presuming
that
the
tions/research-projects-and-surveys/sex-offenses/20091030_
History_Child_Pornography_Guidelines.pdf.
7
See Melissa Hamilton, The Efficacy of Severe Child
Pornography
Sentencing:
Empirical
Validity
or
Political
Rhetoric?, 22 Stan. L. & Poly Rev. 545, 556 (2011).
8
U.S. Sentencing Commn, Results of Survey of United States
District Judges January 2010 Through March 2010, Question 8
(2010), available at http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/
pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/
surveys/20100608_Judge_Survey.pdf.
9
U.S. Sentencing Commn, 2013 Sourcebook of Federal
Sentencing
Statistics,
Table
28,
available
at
http://www.ussc.gov/research-and-publications/annual-reportssourcebooks/2013/sourcebook-2013; see also id. app. A (defining
Below Guideline Range with Booker/18 U.S.C. 3553).
25
child
pornography
supervised
Guideline
release
of
child
as
well
as
pornography
the
Guideline
offenders
for
always
view
Guideline
the
this
way
for
asked
Congress
to
give
it
the
defendant
like
Helton
to
amend
those
these
purposes
of
offenders
amendments
punishment
by
culpability
recommended
in
2012,
necessary
and
to
accounting
sexual
these
for
better
promote
the
the
variations
in
dangerousness. 11
changes
are
It
still
Though
forthcoming.
Luckily, in the meantime, there are judges like Judge Berger who
understand
requires
that
a
the
totality
below-Guideline
of
the
term
to
circumstances
ensure
sometimes
sentence
is
substantively reasonable.
10
26
III.
We measure our humanity by the justice we mete to those
thought least deserving.
lamentable
downward
position
from
an
of
having
excessive
to
balance
Guideline
lifetime of supervision.
27
the
term
need
with
to
depart
an
entire