## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 07

- 3568 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J OS EP H T. N UREK, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 04 C R 333

—Wayn e R. Andersen, Judg e.
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 3, 2008

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 21, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, an d R O V NE R an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . J ose ph N urekpl eaded gui l ty to r e c e i v i ng c hi l d po r no g r a ph y i n v i o l a t i o n o f18 U. S

. C. § 2 25 2A (a)( 2)(A ) an d w as se n te n c ed to 24 0 m on th s in p rison, the sta tutor y m axi m um . On app ealN urekcha ll enges the dist ri ct cour t’ s appli cati on of th e tw o- l eve l sente nci ng g uidel i nes e nhancem ent foro bstr uction o f j u st ice , see U
. S. S. G . § 3 C1. 1; the gov er nm ent’ s r efusalto m ove f ora thi rd- poi nt r educti on in h is o ffense l eve l f or2 N o. 07

- 3568 accepta nce o fr esponsibi l i ty , seeU
. S. S. G

. § 3E 1.1(b); the dist ri ct cour t’ s use of the 2006 Gu i del i nes M anual ( i n effect at the t im e o fse ntenci ng) i nstea d ofthe 2003 G uid eli ne s M an ua l (i n effect at t he tim e of his offen se); and the o ver al l r eas onabl eness o fhi s s entence
. W e r ej ect th e s e c h a l l e n g e s a n d a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und J ose ph N urekhas a Ph. D. i n educati on a n d w or ked as a p rin c ip al a t v ar iou s e lem en ta ry an d m id d le s c h oo ls in M i chi gan a nd I l l i noi s fro m 19 84 unti l 20 04. I n M ar ch 200 4 fede ral agen ts e x ecu ted a search w arran t at N ure k’s Ch i cago hom e l oo ki ng f orev i dence of chi l d pornog ra phy. N ure k ’ s c o mput e r wa s s e i z e d a nd f o r e ns i c a na l y s i s r eveal ed that he had st or ed thousa nd s o fdow nl oaded i m age s o fchi l d pornog ra phy on i t. A t the ti m e, the age nts w er e a l so in ve st i gat i ng N urekforse xuall y abusi ng thr ee ch i l dr en, whom we r efer to as Vi ct i m s A, B, an d C

. The alle ge d ab u se o fV ict im s A an d C oc c u rre d in t h e e ar ly 19 90 s in M ich iga n ; th e a lle g e d a b u se of V ict im B , in co nt r as t, was o ng o i nga t th e ti m e o fthe s ea r ch

. I n 19 9 1 N ure k w as ch arged i n M ichigan state cou rt w i th se xuall y abusi ng a student fro m the m idd l e s chool w here he was the princi pal ; a seco nd co unt al l ege d th atNure kdi st r ibut ed o bs ce ne materi al to th e ch i l d. The Mi c h i g a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n h a d in i t i al l y i n v o l v e d t wo student vi c ti m s, but the S tat e pr oce eded on char ges i nvol vi ng o nl y one vi cti m because the seco nd chi l d did not wantt o t es ti fy . ( The 2 00 4 in ve st i g at i o n int o the al l eg ed ab us e o f Vi ct i m s A a nd C i nv o l ve d differ en tN o. 07

- 3568 3 chi l dren

— w ho were by then adul ts

— altho ug h the ab u s e d a t e d f r o m th e s a me g e n e r a l t i me p e r i o d a s th e M i ch i g anpr o se cut i o n. ) The s ex ua l

- ab us e co unti n the M i ch i g anc as e was di smi ss ed atthe pre l i m i na r yhe ar i ng afterthe j ud ge held thatthe chi l d’s descri pti on o f N urek ’ s conduct did notco nsti tute “se xual conta ct” und er M i ch i g anl aw. Nure kwas a cqui tt ed bya j ur y o n the re m ai ni ng char ge that he di str ibuted obs cen e m ate ri alto a m inor. Cl ea r ed o fthe se ch ar g es , Nure kmove d t o I l l i no i s an d bega n apply i ng fo r teachi ng and adm i ni str ati ve j obs at scho o l s i n a nd a r o un d C hi c a g o . He di d n o tdi s c l ose the s exual

- abuse and obsce ni ty- dist ributi on charge s in vo lve d in t h e M ich iga n p ro se c u tio n . H e w as ev en tu a l ly h ire d as p rin c ip al of a sc h oo l for th e d ev elo p m en ta lly d isabled i n C hicag o a n d l ater bec am e princ ipal of a schoo l f orem oti onal l y di sturbed chi l dren i n A rl i ngto n H ei g ht s, I l l i no i s. I n 2 00 0 he b ec ame pr incipa l o fthe C h i c a g o I n t e r n a t i o n a l C h a r t e r S c h o o l, w h e r e V i c t i m B w as a s tudent. V i c tim B an d h is m ot h er an d sib lin gs w er e liv in g in a h om ele ss sh elt er atth e t im e. A t s om e p oin t t h e fam ily m ov ed to E lgin, I llin ois , w h ich w as to o fa r aw ay for V ict im B to com m ute t o t h e Chart erS chool

. To e nabl e herso n to co nt i nue to at te nd th e Cha r te r S ch o o l, Vi ct im B’s m othe r si gned a docum ent purp or ti ng to gi ve N urek tem pora rycusto dy of V ictim B, and i n A ugust 2 003, j ust b e f o r e th e s t a r to fh i s s e v e n th

- g r a d e s c h o o l y e a r, V i c t i m B m ove d i n w i th N u re k. Fr om then unti l the M ar ch 200 4 sea rch, N urekrepeate dlysexuall y abused Vi cti m B. W hen4 N o. 07

- 3568 federa l ag ents questi one d N urekduri ng the exec uti on o f th e se ar ch war r an t, ho wev er, he den i ed ev er hav in g m o l es te d a ny c hildr en . He a l so t o l d the a g en ts tha t th e c o mput e r the y s e i z e d wa s the o nl y o ne h e p o s s e s s e d. N u re k w as arr es te d an d a m ag ist ra te j u d ge ev en tu ally re l eas ed hi m o n bond. A s a co nd i ti on o fhi s re l eas e, he was prohibi ted fro m havi ng anyco ntact w i th Vi cti m B or Vi ct i m B’ s f ami l y . Nure kv i o l at ed th i s o r dero n n um er o us occa si ons: H e ca l l ed Vic ti m B ’ s fa m i l y on the phone, vi si ted them atthei r hom e, ga ve them s ev er altho usand d ol l ar s, had Vict i m B’s b rothero verto hi s ho use, se nt a perso nal letter to Vic t im B , and prop osed m arriage to Victim B’s m othe r. M or e s peci fi cal l y, N urek fr equentl y t al ked to Vict i m B ’s fam i l y m em ber s o n the phone and vi si ted w i th the m i n pers on o n sev er al oc casi ons. H e g ave V i c t i m B ’ s b r o th e r a n d mo th e r mo r e th a n $ 2 0 0 0 e a c h

. He tol d Vict i m B’s m othe r that he l oved her and aske d her to run away with hi m and ge t m ar ri ed so t h ey could be “on e b i gh a pp y f a mi l y . ” I n hi s l e t t e r t o V i c t i m B, Nur ek sai d he w as sor ry and that he w anted to be “ a g oo d dad to y ou ” and thathe l ove d Vict i m B “as a goo d fa ther l ove s hi s so n. ” Base d on thes e v i ol ati ons ofhi s pre tr i al re l eas e o rder, N u re k’s bo nd was re vok ed and he w as re turned t o custo dy. W hi l e he was st i l l f r ee o n bo nd, ho wev er, N ur ek conta c te d C hi cago pol i ce t o re portthe unexp l ai ned prese nce ofdrugs at hi s ho m e. P ol i ce r esponded, spok e t o N urek an d h is a tt or n ey , an d rec eiv ed p er m is s i o n t o s ea rc h h is g ar ag e, wher e N ur eks ai d he ha d s ee n the dr ug s. Am o ng o th e r d i s c o v e r i e s i n th e g a r a g e , th e p o l i c e f o u n d a c o m-N o. 07

- 3568 5 put erh ard d riv e wi thho l es dr i l l ed i n i t, s i tt i ngi n abo ut s i x i n c h e s o f g a s o l i n e i n a b u c k e t h i d d e n b e h i nd s o me shove l s. N urekto ld t h e offi cer s he w as tr yi ng to destr oy tax-return i nfo rm ati on o n the com pu ter
. A tte m pts to re tr iev e in for m at ion from th e c om p u te r w er e u nsuccess fu l. N u re k w as ind ict ed on se ve n c ou n ts of re c eiv in g c h ild pornog ra phy and one co unt of posse ssing chi l d pornog ra phy. A supers edi ng i nd i ctm ent l ate r add ed two counts of t ra n sp or tin g a m in or ac ro ss st at e lin es to en ga ge in sexualco nd uct. One ofthes e co unts i nvol ved co nd uct aga i nst Vi cti m B ; Nu re k t oo k hi m fro m I l l i noi s t o W i sconsin f orpurposes o fse xual conduct. N urektr avel ed w i th the o ther m in orvi cti m betw een I l l i noi s a nd M i chi gan for th e s am e purpose . A fterl engthypre tr i alpro ceedi ngs, N urekpl eaded gui l ty to a s i ngl e co unt ofknow in gly r e c e i v i ng c hi l d po r no g r a ph y i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U
. S. C. § 2252 A (a)( 2)(A ). I n cal cul ati ng N urek ’ s a dvis ory s entencing g uidel i nes ra nge, the dist ri ct j ud ge used the 2 006 Gu i del i nes M anual i n e ffe c ta ts e nt e nc i ngr a the r tha n the 2 0 0 3 Gu i del i nes M an u a l i n e ffe c twh e n th e o ffe n s e wa s c o mmi t t e d

. T he 2006 Guidel i nes M anual suggest ed a b ase o ffense l eve l f or Nur e k tha t wa s fi v e l e v e l s hi g he r tha n the l e vel sugges ted under the 20 03 Gu i del i nes M anual

. The j ud ge al so appli ed a tw o- l eve l enhancem en t fo r obs tr ucti on o f j u st i c e . See U
. S. S. G

. § 3C 1.1. Th e pre sen ten ce rep ort offer ed two ev i denti ar y b ase s forthi s e nhancem ent: N u re k’s d es tr u c tio n of th e c om p u te r h ar d d riv e fo u n d in the b uc k e t o f g a s o l i ne i n hi s g a r a g e a ft e r hi s r e l e ase o n bond, and hi s re peated conta cts w i th Vict i m B a nd h is6 N o. 07

- 3568 f am i l y in vi ol ati on o fthe ter m s o f h i s pre tr i alr el eas e or der. The di str i ct j ud ge rej ecte d the fi rs t ba si s, char acte ri zing N ure k’s su c c essfu l obliteration of his com p ut er hard dri ve as ra i si ng o nl y a “m er e su sp i ci on. ” The j ud ge accepted the seco nd bas i s, however, fi nd i ng tha t Nu re k had att em pted to i nfl uence V ictim B and exer t co ntro l o ver Vict i m B’s f am i l y thro ugh hi s co nti nuous cont acts w ith th em i n violation of h is pretrial release orde r. Fi nal l y, o verthe gov er nm ent’ s obj ection , the j ud ge ap p lied a t w o-le ve l red u c tio n for a c c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib i l i t y . See U
. S. S. G. § 3 E1. 1( a)

. The go vernm ent r efused to re quest a n additi onalo ne- l eve l r educ tion f oracc ep ta n c e ofr e s p on sib ility , see U. S

. S

. G. § 3 E1. 1(b) , a nd the di st rict courtno te d tha t i t ha d no di sc r et i o n t o g r an t N ur ekthe thi r d po i ntwi th o uta mot i o n b y the g o ve r nm ent. T h e re sul ti ng advi sor y guidel i nes r ange w as 292- 365 m onths, well abov e the st atuto rym axi m um o f24 0 m onths, so th e ra n g e d efa u lte d to th e s ta tu to ry m ax im u m . See U
. S. S. G . § 5 G 1.1( a). Th e d istri ct cou rt cons idered N ure k’s ar gum ents i n m itigati on, i ncl ud i ng hi s cl ai m , bas ed on ane xpe r t o pi ni o n fr o m a c l i ni ca l ps y ch i at r ist, tha t he was a good can di dat e f o r a s ho r te r s en te nc e an d s ex offender tr eat m ent. The j u d ge thought N urek ’ s co nd uct w as too se ri ous a nd hi s r i sk ofr eci divi sm to o greatto j us ti fy a sho r te r s en te nc e an d i m po se d the maxi m um sente nce o f24 0 m onths.

I I . Discussi on N ur ekc ha l l en g es hi s se nt en ce o n f o urg r o unds : ( 1) he cl ai m s the di str i ct c ourter re d by a pp l yi ng t h e tw o-N o. 07

- 3568 7

Bec aus e we ag re e with the di s t ri c tc our t ’ s appl i c at i on ofthe 1 obstruct ion- o f-just ic e enhancem ent based on N urek’ s contac t (co n tin u ed ...) l eve l o bstr ucti on- of

-j usti ce enhancem ent under § 3 C1. 1; ( 2 ) he c l a i ms he s ho ul d ha v e r e c e i v e d a n a ddi t i o na l o nepoi nt r eduction fo r accepta nce o fr esponsibi l i ty und er § 3 E1. 1( b) ev en t hough the gov er nm ent di d not m ove f orthe re du cti on; ( 3) he c l ai m s the di str i ct c ourtvi ol ate d the Ex PostFa cto Cl ause by usi ng the 20 06 Gu i del i nes M anua l r athe r tha n the 2 00 3 Gui del i ne s M an ua l ; a nd ( 4) he c l ai m s th at2 40 mo nt hs is a n un r ea so nabl e se ntence
. N one ofthes e a rgum ents has m er i t.

A . Ob st ructi on ofJ usti ce N ur eka r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctj udg e er r ed byi m po sing the tw o-l eve l enhancem ent foro bstr ucti on o fj usti ce und er§ 3C1. 1 o f t h e gui del i nes. That pro vi si on s tat es that a j ud ge m ay i ncre ase the defe nd ant’ s o ffense l eve l by tw o l eve l s “[ i ] f( A ) the defe nd ant wil l fully obstr ucted or i m peded

. . . the adm i ni str ati on o fj usti ce with re spect to th e i nv es ti g at i o n, pr o se cuti o n, o r s en te nc i ngo fthe i nstant offen se o fco nvi cti on, and ( B) the o bstr ucti ve conduct r el ate d to ( i ) the def endant’s o ffense ofco nvi cti on a nd any re l evant c ond uct; o r ( i i ) a cl ose l y r el ate d offense. ” U.S

. S. G. § 3C 1.1. H er e, the dist ri ct j ud ge i m po se d the e nha nc ementb ec au se Nure kv i o l at ed th e te r m s o fhis p re tr i alr el ea se o r derb y r epe at edl y c o nta c tin g V ict im B an d h is fa m ily in an at t e m p t t o m ain ta in c on tr o l o v er th e fa m ily an d oth er w ise influ en c e t h eir wi l l i ng ne ss t o c o o per at e wi ththe pr o se cuti o n. 18 N o. 07

- 3568

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 w ith V ic ti m B and hi s f am il y, w e need not add res s the a lt ernat i ve gr ound f or the e nha nc em en t

— thati s , Nurek ’ s des t ru c t i on ofh i s c omput e r h a r d dr i ve whi l e o uto n bo nd

. N urekar gues fi rs t that the fac ts do not supp or t a fi nd i ng o fo bstr ucti on o fj ustic e. H e ci tes U ni t e d S t at e s v. Scottfor t h e p ro p os itio n th at ob st ru c tio n u n d er § 3C 1.1 onl y o ccurs wh en the defendant m akes it “m or e co stl y o r othe r wi s e mo r e di ffi c ul tf o r the g o v e r nme ntt o p r o secute i t s c a s e . ” 4 0 5 F
. 3 d 6 1 5 , 6 1 8 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )

. Nur e kc o nt e nd s th at h e d id n otth re at en or in tim id at e V i c t im B an d h is f ami l y, b uti ns te ad ha d o nl y “ fri en dl y ” co nv er sa ti o ns a n d o th eri n n o c e n tc o mmun i c a t i o n s wi th th e m. He ar gu es th at th es e con ta c ts w er e int en d ed to m a in ta in hi s “ cl ose r el ation shi p” w i th the m and pers uade them no t t o i ni t i a t e a ci vil law su it a ga in st h im , no t t o m ak e it m or e di ffi c ul tf o r the g o v e r nme ntt o p r o s e c ut e the c hi l dpornog ra phy charg es. W e a re notper suaded. U nd erthe ci rcum stan c es, no reas ona ble j ud ge w ou ld b e . N ure k’s ben ign interp r e t a tio n of th e fa c ts is n otrem ot ely p lau sib le. V iew ed in conte xt and in light o fN urek ’ s hi sto ry, thes e par ti cul ar bo nd v i olat i o ns c an onlyb e unde r st o o d a s i ns i di o us at t e mpt s a tv i c t i m m a ni pu l a t i o n. T hi s k i nd o fb e ha vi or by a m an i n N urek’s posi ti on ca nnot pos sibl y b e pass ed offas m er e “ f ri en dly ” co ncer n and disinter est ed gene ro si ty
. Nure kwas f ac i ngmul ti pl e fel o ny c hi l d- po r no g r aph y c ou n ts an d th e like lih oo d of sp en d in g t h e res t of h is l ife in pr i so n i f co nv i ct ed; th e po ss ibi l i ty o f a ci vi l su i t w as th eN o. 07

- 3568 9 lea st o f hi s pr o bl ems. N ur ek ’ s l et te r t o Vi ct i m B i s par ti cul arly re veal i ng; i n i t Nu re k t el l s Vi cti m B that he l ove s hi m , m i sse s hi m , an d w an ts to tak e ca re o fhi m and be “a g o o d da d” to hi m . The n h e cl o se s th e letter w i tha cau tion: “Don’ t s ay anythi ng to anyo ne abo ut thi s l etter

— thi s l ett eri s foryo u! Don’t sl i p, the age nts a re j ust w ait in g for so m et h in g like th is.” T h e d ist ric t c ou rtw as qu ite righ t t o c o n c lu d e t h at th is c on d u c t w as int en d ed to h am p e r t h e p ro se c u tio n . Vic tim B h ad se en N u re k view in g an d m as tu rb at in g t o c h ild pornog ra phy m ult i ple ti m es and ther ef or e was an e yew itness to the ch il d -porn ograp hy offen s e s. M oreover, Nu r e k ’ s mo l e s t a t i o n o fV i c t i m B was a s y e tu n k n o wn ( though s uspected) and, unl i ke the M ich i gan v i cti m s, w as re cent and m or e r eadi l y pr ovabl e pro vid ed V i c t i m B fel t sa fe en o ug h t o c o o per at e wi ththe pr o se cut i o n. I nd e e d , N u r e k ’ s c y n i c a l ma n i p u l a t i o n o fV i c t i m B an d hi s f ami l y ha d the de si r ed effec t o fi nhibi tingthe pros ecuti on; i t was o nl y a fter N urek ’ s bond w as r evo ked th atVi ct i m B r ev ea l ed N ur ek ’ s pas t se xu al abus e. The superse din g i nd i ctm ent s ubsequentl y a dd ed the charg es of t ra n sp or tin g a m in or ac ro ss st at e lin es to en ga ge in se x u al c on d u c t. O n th e t ot alit y of t h es e fa c ts , i t w ou ld ha ve bee n error not to apply the obstr ucti on e nhancem ent. N urekal so ar gues that the di str i ct c ourtd id n ot m ake adequate fin dings o n N urek ’ s s peci fi c i ntent to obs tr uct j usti ce. Fo r an o bstr ucti on- of

-j usti ce e nhancem ent t o apply, the gov er nm ent m ust e stabl i sh bya preponderance o fth e e vi den ce tha t th e defen dan t ha d the s pec i fi c i nt en t to ob st ru c t jus tic e. U nite d State s v. D ale, 4 98 F. 3d 604, 60 910 N o. 07

- 3568 (7th C ir. 2007). Thi s i nt en t r equi r em en t st ems fr o m l an g uage inthe g ui del i ne r equi r i ngtha t th e defen dan t

“ w illful lyo bstr uct[ ]
. . . o r att em pt[] to o bstr uct” j usti ce. U .S .S.G . § 3C 1.1 ( emphas i s adde d)

. Howev er, the s en te n ci ng j ud ge i s no t r equi re d to parr ot backthe “w i llfu l” l anguage o fthe g u id el i ne wh en deci ding that an o bstr ucti on e nh an c em ent i s a pp ro pri ate
. Rather, we have s ugges ted thatthe enhancem ent i s a pp ro pri ate as l ong as the di str i ct c ourt“incl ud es i m pli ci tly a fi nd i ng tha t [ the defendant] i ntended to obs tr uct j usti ce. ” D ale, 49 8 F. 3d at 609. H er e, the dist ri ct c ourt ’s fi nd i ngs, wh i l e s om ew hat unc l ea r, wer e su ffi ci en t to s uppo r t th e obstruc ti o n e nhancem ent. The co urt ackno w l edged the possibi l i ty that N ur ekmightha ve ha d m i xe d m o ti ve s f or c o nt ac ting Vict i m B’s f am i l y b ut hel d that “ one ofthe re aso ns thatyo u had a di al ogue with them w as t h at you hoped that that woul d a m el i o r at e th e co ns eque nc es of th e ar r es t an d ch a r g e s . ” T h e j u d g e s a i d : “ I b e l i e v e th a t
. . . o n e o ft he m oti ves w as to pro m ote a posi ti ve re l ati onshi p, i nsof ar as i t was p os sible , with [ Vict i m B’s f am i l y]

— and that w as at a t i m e when you hadn’tpl ed gui l ty and the l ega l st at e o f t h i n gs w as u n c er ta in

— and so Ibel i eve thato bstr ucti on o fj usti ce forthati s a n ap p ro pri ate enhancem en t.” N urek m ai ntai ns that the cour t’ s onl y e xpli ci t “ fi nd i ng” w as that N urekwas tr yi ng to “p ro m ote a posi ti ve re l atio n sh ip ” w ith th e fa m ily

— not enough, he s ays , to supp or t a fi nd i ng o fi ntent to obs tr uct. H e a l so note s that the j ud ge sai d he w as m aking “a ve rysubj ecti veN o. 07

- 3568 11 j u d gm en t” an d “c ou ld be w ro n g” an d “m igh t b e w ro n g.” It is n otcle ar w h at m ov ed t h e c o u rtto ad d th is gr atui tous posts cri pt , b ut we see i t a s j ust that

— a w h olly g r atuit o us s ta te m en t o r a t m o sta c o m m en ta r y o n the i nherentdi ffi cul ty ofev al uati ng m oti ve ori nt ent. Ei ther w ay, i t d oe s not underm i ne the co urt’ s r uling. W hen re ad i n conte xt a n d in thei r enti re ty, the cour t’ s r em ar ks o n the a p pl i ca ti o n o fthe o bs truct i o n e nha nc ement conta i n an i m pli ci t fi nd i ng that N ureki ntended to obs tr uct the pr ose cuti on. Tha t i s e nough to sust ai n the tw o- l eve l enhancem ent.

B. A cce p tan ce of R esp on sib il ity The effect ofthe o bstr ucti on e nhancem ent was wiped out, h owever, wh en the di str i ct c ourtappli ed a tw o- l eve l re du cti on i n N urek ’ s o ffense l eve l f oracc eptance of re sp on sib ility

. See U
. S. S. G. § 3E1. 1( a)

. The j ud ge thought the a cceptance
- of

- re sponsibi l i ty re du ction was warrant ed be ca us e N ur ekdi d no t ta k e an y po si ti o ns i nc o ns i st en t wi ththe g o ve r nm en t’ s al l eg at i o ns a nd agree d t o pay r est i tuti on t o the v i cti m s o fhi s s exual abu se. N ure k also argu e d for the th ird acc ep tan ce-ofr es po ns ibi l ity p oin t unde r s ubs ec ti o n (b) o f§ 3 E1. 1. The gov er nm ent obj ecte d ; i t was o pp ose d to any accepta nce ofr esponsibi l i ty re du cti on, and havi ng l ost thatbat tl e, refused to m ove for the ex tra p oint un d er § 3E 1.1(b). The j udg e sa i d he c o ul d no t co ns i derthe thi r d-poi nt r edu ct i o n in the abs en ce o fa mot i o n fr o m the g o ve r nm en t. T h is w as m an ifes tly c or re c t. T h e gu id elin e s p ec ifical l y s tat es that an a d dit i onalo ne- l eve l r educti on f or12 N o. 07

- 3568 accepta nce o fr esponsibi l i ty i s pos sibl e o nl y i fthe gov er nm ent r equests i t; an a dd i ti onalo ne- poi nt reducti on i s a wa r d e d “ u p o n mo t i o n o fth e g o v e r n me n ts t a t i ng that the defendant h as assi ste d author i ti es i n the i nvest i gatio n or p ro se c u tio n of h is ow n m i sc on d u c t b y t im ely notifyi ng autho ri ti es ofhi s intenti on t o entera ple a o f gu il ty, th ereby pe r m itti ng the gove rnm en t to avoid p rep ari ngf o r t rial a nd pe r m i tt i ngthe g o ve r nm en t an d the c o urt to a l l o c a t e the i r r e s o ur c e s e ffi c i e nt l y . ” U. S

. S

. G. § 3E 1.1( b). H er e, th e g ov er n m en t re fu se d to m ov e fo r th e a d d iti onalr educti on be cause N ureko nl y pl eaded gui l ty to o ne o f te n c o unt s, he fr i vo l o us l y c o nt es te d the o bs truct i o nof-justi ce e nhancem ent, he s how ed no r ealr em or se f or hi s ac ti o ns , a nd h is “offer ” to make r es ti tu ti o n t o the vi cti m s was s im plyan a gr eem ent that hi s $ 500, 000 bo nd wou l d b e f o r fei te d t o the v ictim s rathe r tha n the co ur t. Be ca us e th e g o vernm en t di d no t m o ve f o r the add i ti onal re du cti on, the dist ri ct cour t properly rej ecte d N urek ’ s argum ent fo r a thi rd acc eptance- of

- re sponsibi l i ty po i nt
. U. S

. S

. G. § 3 E1. 1 cmt. n. 6 ( “[ A]na dj us tment u n d er su b se c tio n (b) m ay on ly be g r an te d u p o n a f o r m alm o ti o n b y the Go ve r nm en t atthe t i m e o fs en ten cing.”). N u re k a rg u e s o n ap p ea l th at th e g ov er n m en t h as on ly l i m i ted di scr eti on t o w i thhol d a m oti on f ora thi rd- l eve l re d u c tio n u n d er § 3E 1.1 (b ) . N ottru e. W e h av e re c en tly reiterated that alth o ugh s ubs ec tion (a) of the acc ep tan ce-ofr espon sibi l i tyg ui del i ne “ co nfer s ane nt i tl emento n the d efe n d an t[] if h e s at isfie s t h e c rit er ia in th e s u b se c tio n,”N o. 07

- 3568 13 subsect i on (b) “co nfe rs an e nti tl em ent o n th e go vern m en t.” U n ited S ta tes v. D eberry, No
. 0 9

- 1 1 1 1 , 2 0 0 9 WL 2 4 3 2 481, at * 1 ( 7th Cir

. A ug. 11, 2009 )

. Subse cti on ( b) of § 3 E 1.1 is thus “a l i cense f orpro secuto ri aldi sc reti on. ” Id. I fthe go ve rn m en t “ w an ts to g ive th e d efe n d an t a d d itio n al c re d it f o r a cc ep tan ce o fr es po ns ibi l i ty
. . . a nd c ans at i sfy the cr i te r i a i n the s ubs ec ti o n, i t can fi l e a m o ti o n a nd the defe nd ant w il l ge t th e ad d itio n al on e-le ve l red u c tio n in h is offense l eve l

. ” Id. T he prose cu tor’s disc r e t io n is therefore quit e broa d , though notl i m i tl ess ; the gov er nm ent “ m ay not base a re fusalto fi l e a m oti on un der s ecti on 3 E1. 1( b) o n an i nvi d iou s ground, or. . . o n a g ro und unrel ate d to a l egi ti m ate go ver nm entalo bj ecti ve. ” Id. at * 2. H er e, the gover n m en t’ s r eas ons f orr efusi ng to fi l e a § 3 E1. 1( b) m oti on were hard ly in vidi ous o r unrel ate d to a l egitim ate go ver nm entalo bj ecti ve. To the co ntra ry, the g ove rnm ent’ s a rgum ents w oul d have fully s up port ed a d eci s i o n t o de nythe t wo - po i ntr e du c t i o n un de r s ubsect i on ( a) o fthe gui del i ne, had the dist ri ct cou rt so rul ed. N urek di d fri volously c o n t est th e obstru ction-ofj us t i c e e nh a nc em e nt, f o r the r e a s o ns we h a v e a l r e a dy no te d. He pl ea ded g ui l tyt o j us t o ne o ft enc ou nt s a nd dem onst ra ted l i ttl e r eali nsi ght into orr em or se f or the depra vi ty ofhi s co nd uct. H i s “ag re em ent” to m ake re sti t ut i o n c o s th i m no thing; h i s b o nd wo ul d h a v e b e en subj ect to f or fei tu re anyway ba sed o n hi s v i ol ati ons of th e te r m s o fhi s pr et r i alr el ea se o r d er. T he g o ve r nm en t acte d we l l wi thin i t s di s c r e t i o n i n wi thh o l di nga mo t i on f orthe add i ti onal one- poi nt r educti on f oracc eptance of resp ons ibi li ty un d er § 3E 1.1( b).14 N o. 07

- 3568 C. Use of20 06 G uidel i nes M anu al N ur ekne xta r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s u se o fthe 2006 Guid eli nes M anual r atherthan the 2 003 Gu i del i nes M anual vi ol ate d the Ex PostFac to Cla use o fthe U ni ted St ate s Const i tuti on. N urek ’ s a rgum ent i s s qua re ly f or ecl ose d by U nited Sta tes v. D em a ree, 459 F. 3d 791 ( 7th C ir. 20 06 ). D em a ree hel d that appli cati on of the g u id el i nes m an u al in effe c t a t s en te n c i n g rat h er th an th e o n e in f or ce a t the ti m e o fthe defe nd ant’ s cri m e d oes n ot vi ol ate the Ex Post Fact o Clause , eve n i f the curren t m anual sugge sts a harsh er se ntence f orthe defe nd ant. N urek invites us to recons ider D em a ree. W e dec l i ne the i nv i ta ti o n. A l aw vi ol ate s the Ex Post Fact o C lau se i fi t cr eat es a substa nti alr i sk ofan incre ase d penalty a ftera cri m e has b e e n c o mm i t t e d. See G a r n er v. Jon es , 52 9 U.S

. 24 4, 25 5- 56 (2000). We h e l d i n D e m a ree that a chang e in the gui del i n es d oes notvi ol ate the Ex Pos t F acto Cl ause because after U nited S ta tes v . B o o k er, 54 3 U.S

. 22 0 ( 2005 ) , the gui del i nes a re purel y a dvis or y. W e hel d that “ the e x post f acto cl ause shoul d app l y o nl y t o l aw s a nd r egulat ion s that b ind rather than advi se. ” D em a ree, 45 9 F
. 3d at 795. A fter w e h ea rd ora l arg u m en t in th is c as e, t h e D .C . C irc u it r ej ec te d o urv i ew i n D em a reeand held i ns tead that “[i ]t i s e nough thatusi ng the 20 06 Gu id elin es cre ate d a substan tial risk that [the d efend an t’s] sen ten ce w as m o re seve re . ” U nited Sta tes v. Turn er, 5 4 8 F
. 3 d 1 094, 11 0 0 ( D. C. Cir

. 20 08)

. The D. C. Cir cui t focuse d on the pract i cal appli cati on o fthe gui del i nes, not i ng tha t t ri alj ud ges u su ally se n t e n c e w ith in th e g u id elin es “in ord er to av oid th e in c re as ed sc ru tin y [on ap p e a l] th at is like ly to res u ltN o. 07

- 3568 15 f ro m i m posi ng a sente nce o u tsi de the Gu i del i nes. ” Id. at 1099

. W e an ti ci pat ed th i s ar g um en t i n D em a ree and rej ecte d i t, noti ng tha t the pre su m pti on o fr eas onabl eness that adheres to a w i thi n-guidel i nes sente nce onl y applie s on a p p e a l. D em a ree, 4 5 9 F
. 3 d a t7 9 4

. Ats e nt e nc i ng, a di s t r i ct j ud ge “i s no t r equi re d

— or ind ee d per m i tte d

— to ‘ presum e’ that a s entence withi n the gui del i nes r ange i s the co rr ect se nt en ce . . . . [ H ] i s f r ee do m t o i m po se a r ea so nabl e se ntence o utsi de the ra nge i s unfett er ed. ” Id. at79 4- 95 ( ci tat i on om itt ed ). Th e Su p re m e C o u rtreit er at ed th is p oin t in bo th G all a nd R it a . Se eGal l v. U ni t e d S t a tes , 1 28 S. Ct. 58 6, 597( 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ I n [ c a l c ul a t i ngthe s e nt e nc e , the j ud g e ] m ay not pr e s u m e tha t the Gu idelines ran ge is reason able.”) ; R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 12 7 S

. Ct. 24 56 , 24 65 ( 2007 ) ( “[ T] he sente nci ng co urt does not enj oy the b enefi t o fa l ega l pr e s umpt i o n tha tthe Gu i de l i ne s s e nt e nc e s ho ul d a pply

. ”)

. Giv en the br eadth o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s B o o k er sente nci ng di scr eti on a n d t he r equi re m ent that j ud ges i nd ependentl y e val uate the s entencing f acto rs speci fi ed in 18 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a), w e t h in k ou r c on c lu sio n in D em a ree r e mai ns s o un d.

D . Reasonable ness oft he Sen t ence Fin ally , N u re k a rg u es th at h is 2 40 -m on th se n te n c e is unrea sonabl e in l i ght o f§ 3553 ( a) ’ s s entencing f acto rs . Speci fi cal l y, he c onte nd s that t h e d i str i ct c ourtga ve i nsuffi ci ent wei ght t o hi s pri m ar y a rgum ent, wh i ch w as prem i sed o n the opi ni on o fhi s e xpert, Dr. Ri chard Abram s,16 N o. 07

- 3568 th at a se x -offe n d er tre at m en t p ro gr am w ou ld “c u re h im and pr eve nt re ci divi sm ” and there f or e a l engthy p er i od ofi ncarc er ati on was u nnecess ar y. The r eco rd r efutes th is cl aim ; the d istri ct j ud ge evalu ate d Dr. A bram s’s te st im on y a n d ind ee d , qu es tio n e d t h e e x p er t h im se lf f o r s ev er almin ut es . I n ar r i vinga t th e 24 0- m o nth s en tence , the j ud ge w as ske pti calo fthe possibi l i ty that N ur e kc o ul d b e s uc c e s s ful l y t r e a t e d, a l tho ugh he a g re ed to r ec o m m en d tha t he r ec ei ve s ex - o ffen d er t r ea tment w hi l e in pri son. The j ud ge ult i m ate l y c on c lu ded that i ncapaci tat i on w as necess ar y base d o n the s er i ousness ofN urek ’ s o ffense cond u c t, hi s hi sto ry, and the hi gh r i sk ofr ecid ivism : “[ T]he one thi ng Iam sur e o fi n thi s i s that the best w ay to prot ect the pu bl i c i s f or M r. N u re k n ot to b e fre e fo r as lon g a s p os sib le.” N u re k a l s o fa u lts th e d ist ric t c ou rtfor n otgiv in g s u ffici ent we i g htt o h i s a g e ( 5 9 y e a r s o l d) a nd h i s p hy s i cal and m ental

- heal th pro bl em s (in c lu ding ast hm a, hi gh b l o o d pr es su r e, a nd a hi st o r y o fde pr es si o n a nd al cohol i sm , am ong othe r ai l m ents). A l though the j ud ge di d n o tdi s c us s e a c h o fthe s e f a c t o r s i nd i vi du al l y, h e di d, i n the conte xt o fdi scussing Dr. A bra m s’ s o pini on, re fer to N ure k’s psychol ogi calbac kgr ound and the i m probabi l i ty ofsucce ssful r ehabi l i tat i on. N urek ’ s physi cal ail m en ts an d age are not signifi can t m iti g a t in g factors in th e con tex t of th is case , an d as su ch, th e d istri ct cou rt n ee d n oth av e s ep ar at ely a d d re ss ed th em . U nited Sta tes. v. M a rtinez , 520 F. 3d 749, 75 2- 53 ( 7th Ci r. 200 8) ( i nsubst an ti als en te nc i nga r g um en ts ma y be r ej ec te d wi th o ut d isc u ss ion ); U nited Sta tes v. Sh a nn o n, 518 F. 3d 494, 49 6 ( 7th Cir

. 20 08) ( “The co urt need not add re ss eve ry§ 355 3(a)N o. 07

- 3568 17 f ac to r i n c he ck l i stf as hi o n, e xpl ici tlya r ti cul at i ngi ts c o nclusion s regard ing each one.”). The di st r i ctc our t g av e spe ci fi c an d a ppr o pr i at e co nside ration to the rel eva n t § 3 553(a) factors and N ure k’s p rim ary sen te n c in g argum en t, w hich f ocu sed on D r. Abr ams’ s o pi ni o n ab o ut hi s amenabi l i tyt o t r ea tment
. The 240- m onth s entence

— the de f a ul tg ui de l i ne s r a ng e u nd er § 5 G1

. 1 ( a)

— is pr esum ed re aso nabl e o n appeal and re

v i e we d d e fe r e nt i a l l y. R ita , 12 7 S . C t. at 24 65 ; U nited Sta tes v. Ha ski ns, 51 1 F .3d 68 8, 69 5 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ykyt i uk, 415 F. 3d 606, 60 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)

. N urekhas not r eb ut te d the pr es um pti o n o r c o nv i nc ed us tha t th e dist ri ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on. U nd erthe extr em ely agg ra vate d c i rcum sta nces of thi s case , th e 2 40- m onth sente nce was a re aso nabl e o ne. A FFI RMED

8- 21- 09