Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02821/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02821-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Todd Christopher Zastoupil
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2821

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Todd Christopher Zastoupil, * District of North Dakota.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: April 25, 2007

Filed: May 9, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Todd Zastoupil appeals his conviction and sentence imposed by the district

court1

 after a jury found him guilty of sexual exploitation of minors, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) (Count 1), and possession of material involving the sexual

exploitation of minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2) (Count 2).

In a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that the

district court miscalculated Zastoupil’s total offense level under the Guidelines, and

Zastoupil asserts other claims in pro se submissions.

Appellate Case: 05-2821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2007 Entry ID: 3307623
-2-

Following de novo review of the district court’s interpretation and application

of the Guidelines, see United States v. Kiel, 454 F.3d 819, 822 (8th Cir. 2006), we

find that the court correctly increased Zastoupil’s adjusted offense level of 35 by 4

levels to account for the two offenses against each of the two victims, see U.S.S.G.

§ 2G2.1(b)(1), § 3D1.2(d) (excluding § 2G2.1 offenses from grouping of closely

related counts), § 3D1.4(a) (to calculate combined offense level, count group with

highest offense level as one unit, and count one additional unit for each group that is

equally serious or from 1 to 4 levels less serious; for 31⁄2-5 units, increase offense level

by 4 levels); Kiel, 454 F.3d at 822-23 (upholding multiple-count adjustment under

§ 3D1.4 and explaining that under § 2G2.1, concerning sexual exploitation of minors

by production of sexually explicit visual material, Chapter 3 Part D provisions

concerning multiple counts shall be applied as if exploitation of each minor had been

contained in separate count of conviction, and multiple counts involving exploitation

of multiple minors are not to be grouped together under § 3D1.2). Given Zastoupil’s

total offense level of 39, his Category V criminal history, and the resulting Guidelines

imprisonment range of 360 months to life, with a statutory maximum prison term of

50 years as to Count 1, and 20 years as to Count 2, the district court sentenced

Zastoupil to concurrent terms of 50 years in prison and 3 years of supervised release

on Count 1, and 20 years in prison and 3 years of supervised release on Count 2. In

so doing, the court found that the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) justified a

sentence at the statutory maximum available under federal law, in part based on the

disturbing offense conduct and the statement of an evaluating doctor that Zastoupil

continued to demonstrate cognitive distortions and irrational thought patterns, and that

he presented a high level of serious risk to the community. We conclude that

Zastoupil’s sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220, 261-64 (2005).

Turning to the additional arguments raised in Zastoupil’s pro se supplemental

filings, we note that claims related to counsel’s performance before and during trial

should be asserted in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, where the record can be properly

Appellate Case: 05-2821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2007 Entry ID: 3307623
-3-

developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). In

addition, we reject Zastoupil’s argument that he was sentenced beyond the statutory

maximum, which he based in part on his contention that his prior state conviction for

corruption of a minor did not qualify as a prior sexual-exploitation conviction. See

18 U.S.C. §§ 2243(a) (sexual abuse of minor includes knowingly engaging in sexual

act with person 12-15 years old), 2251(e), 2252(b)(2). Further, Zastoupil’s arguments

concerning the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment and, relatedly, the criminal

court’s jurisdiction over him are frivolous.

We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2821 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/09/2007 Entry ID: 3307623