Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11309/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11309-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Brandon Hutcheson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11309

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SCOTT BRANDON HUTCHESON,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-59

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Scott Brandon Hutcheson appeals the sentence following his guilty plea 

conviction for aiding and abetting the transportation of child pornography.

Hutcheson maintains that the district court plainly erred in its relevant 

conduct determination. He contends that the district court should not have 

treated his prior uploading to YouTube of a video involving child pornography 

as relevant conduct that could be used to determine the number of images

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 31, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11309 Document: 00513136783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/31/2015
No. 14-11309

2

involved in this offense for purposes of an enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 2G2.2(b)(7)(A). The record reflects that the previous uploading of the video

and the instant offense both involved the transportation of child pornography, 

concerned images of young boys, and shared a modus operandi of electronically 

transmitting child pornography over the internet to appear on social-media 

websites. Because the prior uploading of the video was connected to the instant 

offense by at least one common factor, it was part of a “common scheme or plan”

and was relevant conduct for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines. See

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). Hutcheson therefore cannot show clear or obvious error 

by the district court. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009).

Furthermore, Hutcheson argues that the district court erred in requiring 

that he submit to plethysmograph testing as a special condition of supervised 

release. He concedes that this argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, but 

he raises it to preserve it for further appellate review. Hutcheson is correct 

that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Ellis, 720 F.3d 220, 227 (5th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 681 (2013), which held that a defendant’s 

challenge to a supervised release condition requiring him to participate in a 

sex offender treatment program, which included the possibility of submitting 

to psycho-physiological testing, was not ripe for review on direct appeal. A

panel of this court may not overrule the decision of another without en banc 

reconsideration or a superseding Supreme Court decision. United States v. 

Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 & n.34 (5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-11309 Document: 00513136783 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/31/2015