United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1808

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Charles Edward Bracken

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: February 29, 2016

 Filed: May 16, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Charles Edward Bracken pled guilty to distribution of child pornography in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). He appeals the district court’s below- 1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota. 
guidelines-range sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291, this court

affirms.

Bracken distributed over 21,000 images and 570 videos depicting sexual abuse

of children—including children being raped and in bondage. He faced a guideline

range of 210 to 240 months’ imprisonment, and a mandatory minimum 5-year

imprisonment. At sentencing, he requested the minium sentence. The government

recommended a downward variance to 151 to 181 months’ imprisonment. The

district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment. Bracken asserts that the

district court gave insufficient weight to his lack of criminal history, severe physical

and sexual abuse as a child, deteriorating physical health, the collateral consequences

of his conviction (such as social stigma), and low risk of re-offending—all of which

were fully briefed in the district court. Bracken argues his 120-month sentence is

“greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of federal sentencing.”

This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Harlan, 815 F.3d 1100, 1107 (8th Cir. 2016). A court

abusesits discretion if it “fails to consider a relevant factor thatshould have received

significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or

considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in

weighing those factors.” United States v. Ceballos-Santa Cruz, 756 F.3d 635, 637

(8th Cir. 2014). 

The district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The district court

stated that it would consider the advisory guideline range and the need to avoid

unwarranted sentencing disparities. The court found that a 120-month sentence was

“sufficient but not greater than necessary,” “reflects the seriousness of the offense,”

is an “adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” and “protect[s] the public from

further crimes ofthe Defendant.” The court acknowledged “sentences out there” both

higher and lower than 120 months, but concluded this sentence “fulfills 3553.” The

-2-
district court did not commit a clear error of judgment in sentencing the defendant to

a term of imprisonment 90 months below the guidelines range. See United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“[I]t will be the unusual case

when we reverse a district court sentence—whether within, above, or below the

applicable Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable.” (internal quotation

marks omitted)).

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-