Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15441/USCOURTS-ca11-14-15441-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Keith Dunn
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-15441

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60090-WJZ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRIAN KEITH DUNN, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 31, 2015)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 14-15441 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 1 of 2
2

Brian Keith Dunn appeals his sentence of 150 months’ imprisonment, 

imposed after pleading guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) by using interstate 

commerce to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexual 

activity. Dunn argues the district court erred because the prison sentence of 150 

months is substantively unreasonable. After review,1 we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 150-month 

sentence. The district court considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a). In doing so, the district court observed the seriousness of taking the 

minor victim to a remote location and pressuring him into engaging in sexual 

activity. Although the Government requested the district court to impose a term of 

144 months’ imprisonment, the district court was not constrained by the 

Government’s request. United States v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 628, 630 (11th Cir. 

1998) (“That the sentencing court is not bound by the parties’ agreements or 

recommendations is well settled.”). Dunn has not met his burden of establishing 

his sentence was “unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.” 

See United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). We accordingly 

affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 1

 We review the substantive unreasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008).

USCA11 Case: 14-15441 Date Filed: 07/31/2015 Page: 2 of 2