Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-15-05172/USCOURTS-ca6-15-05172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Cory Dean
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0633n.06

No. 15-5172

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RONALD CORY DEAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

TENNESSEE

BEFORE: BOGGS, SUTTON, and COOK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Ronald Cory Dean challenges the procedural and substantive 

reasonableness of his 300-month sentence for child-pornography offenses. We affirm.

Dean pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2251(a), two counts of distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2252(a)(2), and possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). 

These charges arose from Dean’s use of a file-sharing program to distribute image and video 

files of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and his production of a video of himself 

engaged in sexually explicit conduct with a prepubescent boy. According to the presentence 

report, Dean possessed at least 1207 image files and 1337 video files depicting sexually explicit 

conduct involving minors. The presentence report included the victim-impact statements 

submitted by or on behalf of victims identified in those image and video files. 

 Case: 15-5172 Document: 12-2 Filed: 09/10/2015 Page: 1
No. 15-5172

United States v. Dean

- 2 -

At sentencing, the district court calculated a guidelines range of 324 to 405 months of 

imprisonment based on a total offense level of 41 and a criminal history category of I. Dean 

requested a downward variance from that range to the fifteen-year statutory mandatory minimum

sentence. After considering the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court 

varied downward from the guidelines range and sentenced Dean to 300 months of imprisonment.

In this timely appeal, Dean contends that his sentence is (1) procedurally unreasonable 

because the district court failed to adequately explain the chosen sentence and (2) substantively 

unreasonable because the district court gave an unreasonable amount of weight to certain

sentencing factors based on the “gratuitous” victim-impact statements included in his 

presentence report. We review Dean’s sentence for reasonableness under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

Dean asserts that the district court failed to provide an adequate explanation for rejecting 

his request for a downward variance to the fifteen-year mandatory minimum. When a defendant 

“presents nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence,” the sentencing judge should 

consider the defendant’s arguments and “explain why he has rejected those arguments.” Rita v. 

United States, 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007). The district court is not, however, required to “give the 

reasons for rejecting any and all arguments by the parties for alternative sentences.” United 

States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 387 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Ultimately, to impose a 

procedurally reasonable sentence, “[t]he sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the 

appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for 

exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita, 551 U.S. at 356. Because Dean failed 

to object to the adequacy of the district court’s explanation when given the opportunity to do so 

 Case: 15-5172 Document: 12-2 Filed: 09/10/2015 Page: 2
No. 15-5172

United States v. Dean

- 3 -

at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, we review for plain error. Vonner, 516 F.3d at 385-

86.

The district court did not err, let alone plainly err. The district court acknowledged 

Dean’s cooperation with authorities, his confession to his conduct with the prepubescent boy, his 

lack of criminal history, and his post-arrest efforts at rehabilitation, including his pre-enrollment 

in the sex-offender treatment program. The district court went on to emphasize that Dean’s

offense was “extremely serious” given that, in addition to possessing and distributing child 

pornography, he “actively became involved with a minor and abused and molested that minor.” 

(RE 60, Page ID # 168-69). While rejecting Dean’s request for a fifteen-year sentence, the 

district court agreed that a “slight” downward variance was appropriate based on some of the 

mitigation arguments raised, including his young age (twenty-one years old), his youth when he 

began engaging in this conduct, his own sexual abuse as a child, and the lack of treatment for his 

mental-health issues. (Id. Page ID # 171). Although the district court did not expressly address 

Dean’s arguments that the child-pornography guidelines are flawed, those arguments have been 

rejected by this court. United States v. Walters, 775 F.3d 778, 783-87 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 

135 S. Ct. 2913 (2015); United States v. Cunningham, 669 F.3d 723, 732-33 (6th Cir. 2012); see 

United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348, 361 (6th Cir. 2009). The district court adequately 

explained Dean’s 300-month sentence.

In support of his challenge to his sentence’s substantive reasonableness, Dean argues that 

the district court gave an unreasonable amount of weight to promoting respect for the law and 

affording adequate deterrence based on the “gratuitous” victim-impact statements included in his 

presentence report. “The essence of a substantive-reasonableness claim is whether the length of 

the sentence is ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

 Case: 15-5172 Document: 12-2 Filed: 09/10/2015 Page: 3
No. 15-5172

United States v. Dean

- 4 -

§ 3553(a).” United States v. Tristan-Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629, 632-33 (6th Cir. 2010). Given 

“that a sentence within the applicable guidelines range is presumptively reasonable . . . [,] a 

defendant attacking the substantive reasonableness of a below-guidelines sentence has an even 

heavier burden to overcome.” United States v. Elmore, 743 F.3d 1068, 1076 (6th Cir. 2014); see 

United States v. Greco, 734 F.3d 441, 450 (6th Cir. 2013). 

Dean has not overcome that burden. Dean contends that the presentence report included 

not only the victim-impact statements of four victims whose images were found on his storage 

devices but also numerous other irrelevant victim-impact statements from victims whose images 

the government never claimed to have found on his devices. Dean misreads the presentence 

report, which states: 

Upon analyzing the images and videos possessed by Dean in this offense, agents 

were able to identify several of the victims depicted therein. The government 

furnished victim impact statements submitted by or on behalf of those individuals, 

and the statements will be set forth immediately below. . . . Restitution requests 

were submitted by or on behalf of a few identified victims . . . .

(Presentence Report 10). All of the victim-impact statements included in the presentence report 

were submitted by or on behalf of victims identified from the images and videos possessed by 

Dean; four of those victims requested restitution. All of those victims had a right to be heard. 

See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4). Overruling Dean’s objection to the inclusion of the victim-impact

statements in the presentence report, the district court concluded that the statements were 

properly considered in conjunction with the § 3553(a) factors, but stated that the number of 

statements did not have “any bearing on the Court’s ultimate determination.” (RE 60, Page ID 

# 120). Dean has failed to show that the district court placed undue weight on the victim-impact

statements or on any sentencing factor.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Dean’s sentence.

 Case: 15-5172 Document: 12-2 Filed: 09/10/2015 Page: 4