Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02631/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02631-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian Atteberry
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2631

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Brian Atteberry, *

*

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 9, 2006

Filed: May 3, 2006 

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, HANSEN and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

LOKEN, Chief Judge.

In February 2004, federal and state agents conducted a warrant search of Brian

Atteberry’s residence. They seized a computer and floppy disks containing 300 to 600

images of child pornography and documents containing stories and letters written by

Atteberry about abducting little girls and holding them as sexual hostages. When

questioned after his arrest, Atteberry admitted having sexual contact with a four-yearold girl two years earlier. He was charged with and pleaded guilty to one count of

distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). Prior to his

May 2005 sentencing, Atteberry was convicted in state court and sentenced to eighty

years in prison for attempted sexual abuse, based upon his post-arrest admission, and

for possession of child pornography, based upon pornographic writings found during

Appellate Case: 05-2631 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040322
1

The HONORABLE WILLIAM R. WILSON, United States District Judge for

the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

the warrant search. The district court1

 sentenced Atteberry to 120 months in prison

to be served consecutively to his undischarged state sentence. Atteberry appeals,

arguing that the district court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence and that his

sentence is unreasonable and violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against

cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm. 

Section 5G1.3 of the Guidelines addresses whether a federal sentence should

be made concurrent with or consecutive to an undischarged prison term. Subsection

(a) prescribes when the federal sentence “shall be imposed to run consecutively.”

Subsection (b) prescribes when the federal sentence must be concurrent. Subsection

(c) provides that “[i]n any other case . . . the sentence for the instant offense may be

imposed to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively.” 

Atteberry first argues that the district court erred in imposing a consecutive

sentence because a concurrent sentence was mandated by U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b), which

applies if “a term of imprisonment resulted from another offense that is relevant

conduct to the instant offense . . . and that was the basis for an increase in the offense

level for the instant offense.” This contention was not made in the district court and

therefore we review it for plain error. Atteberry concedes that his state court

conviction for attempted sexual abuse was not relevant conduct to his federal offense.

But he argues that his state court conviction for pornography possession was relevant

conduct because it was based, at least in part, on writings printed out from the

computer and floppy disks seized in the warrant search and essential to his federal

conviction. We need not consider the relevant conduct issue because, even if that part

of his state offense was relevant conduct, it was not the basis for an increase in the

offense level used to determine Atteberry's guidelines range sentence. He received

enhancements for images of prepubescent minors, pornography distribution, images

Appellate Case: 05-2631 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040322
-3-

portraying sadistic or masochistic conduct, use of a computer, and 300 or more

images. See U.S.S.G. §§ 2G2.2(b)(1), (2)(E), (3), (5), (6)(C). Thus, his offense level

“was increased because of the defendant's conduct in the commission of the federal

offense and not for his conduct in the state offenses.” United States v. Terry, 305 F.3d

818, 826 (8th Cir. 2002), citing United States v. Tisdale, 248 F.3d 964, 976-77 (10th

Cir. 2001). There was no plain error.

Atteberry next argues that the district court abused its discretion under

§ 5G1.3(c) by imposing a consecutive rather than a concurrent federal sentence. The

now-advisory Guidelines give only the most general guidance to district courts in

exercising this discretion. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment, (n.3). Thus, after Booker,

the principal issue for our review is whether a consecutive sentence was reasonable.

See United States v. Shafer, 438 F.3d 1225, 1227 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v.

Meyers, 401 F.3d 959, 962 (8th Cir. 2005). 

When prison terms for multiple offenses are imposed at different times, the

governing statute encourages consecutive sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a);

United States v. Mayotte, 249 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2001). The objective is “to

achieve a reasonable incremental punishment for the instant offense and avoid

unwarranted disparity.” U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment, (n.3). Here, the district court

explained that Atteberry’s state and federal convictions were separate, that “he needs

something on the end of the state [sentence] for what he pled guilty to here,” and that

the total combined sentence was appropriate. Given the nature and severity of

Atteberry’s crimes, we agree and therefore conclude that the 120-month consecutive

sentence was not unreasonable.

Finally, Atteberry argues that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual

punishment that violates the Eighth Amendment. We disagree. “The Eighth

Amendment forbids only extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the

crime.” United States v. Collins, 340 F.3d 672, 679 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotations

Appellate Case: 05-2631 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040322
-4-

omitted). “A sentence within the statutory limits is generally not subject to [Eighth

Amendment] review.” United States v. Boone, 869 F.2d 1089, 1092-93 (8th Cir.),

cert. denied, 493 U.S. 822 (1989). Here, the sentence imposed was well within the

statutory limits and the appropriate guidelines range for Atteberry's federal offense.

The fact that the sentence was imposed to run consecutively to his undischarged

sentence for different state crimes does not make the federal sentence grossly

disproportionate for Eighth Amendment purposes. Cf. Neal v. Grammar, 975 F.2d

463, 464-65 (8th Cir. 1992).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

____________________

Appellate Case: 05-2631 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/03/2006 Entry ID: 2040322