# United States Court of Appeals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 A rgued J uly7, 20 09 Deci ded J uly15 , 20 09 B efo re R IC H A R D A . PO SN E R, Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 4260 UNI T E D S T AT E S O F AME R I C A, P la intif f-A pp ellee,
v. L O U IS H O P K IN S, JR ., D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe N or thern Dis tr i ct o fInd i ana, H amm o nd Di vi si o n . N o. 2: 06- CR
- 110 J am es T. M oo dy, Judg e . O R D E R L ou is H op kin s, Jr. p lea d ed gu ilty to on e c ou n t o f rec eiv in g c h ild p or n og ra p h y, see 18 U
. S. C. § 2 252( a) ( 2) , and w as sente nced to 210 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. Hopkins now ap p ea ls, co n te n d in g th atth e c ou rtign or ed h is p rin c ip al a rg u m en t a t s en te n c in g: n am ely th at a long sen ten ce w ou ld be cou nt erp rod uc tive to his rehab il itation. Be cau se th e record do es no t r efl ec t th atthe c o ur t ade qua te l yc o ns i der ed th i s ar g um en t, we va ca te a nd r emand f orr ese ntencing. In June 2 00 6 th e po l i ce e xe cut ed a se ar chwar r an t atHopk i ns ’ s r es i den ce , r ec o ve r i ng m or e than 8, 000 i m age s o fchi l d pornog ra phy fro m hi s co m pu ter . About a yea r l ate r NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl yin a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 4260 Page 2

H op kin s p lea d ed gu ilty to rec eiv in g c h ild p or n og ra p h y, see 18 U. S
. C. § 2 25 2( a) ( 2)
. T he proba ti on o ffi certhen prepar ed a pr ese ntence i nvest i gat i on r epor t, wh i ch cal cul ate d H op kins’s offen se level at 37 an d his crim inal history category at I, resulting in anad visory gui del i nes i m pri sonm ent r ange of21 0 t o 262 m onths. H opkins ar gued i n a wri tte n m em or andu m and at sente nci ng tha t he shoul d rec ei ve a be l ow-gui del i nes s entence bec ause, am ong seve ra lo therr eas ons, he was am enabl e t o tr ea tment . At th e se nt en cinghe ar i ng, Hopk i ns pr es en te d the t es ti m o nyo fTi ff any S i m pso n, Ph
. D. , a c l i ni ca lps y ch o l o g i sts pec i al i zingin s ex - o ffen dert r ea tment . S i m pso n, w ho had exam i ned H opkins o n two occa si ons and conducted psychol ogi calte sting with hi m , te sti fi ed that he was “nota pedoph i l e” and w oul d be “ very a m enabl e t o tr eat m ent. ” She said th at long-term inc arcerat ion cou ld be cou nt erp rod uc tive to H op kins’s r eh ab i l i ta ti o n. Ba se d o n the se c o nc l us i o ns , S i m pso n o pi ne d tha t a fi ve - y ea rs en te nc e ( th e st at u to ry m in im u m ) an d lifetim e s u p er vis ed rele as e w ou ld be m os t c on d u c ive to h is re h ab ilita tio n . Fo llow in g Sim p so n ’s t es tim on y, H op kin s a rg u ed ag ain sta lon g s en te n c e in fav or of th e m in im u m p ris on te rm an d lifetim e s u p er vis ed rele as e. T h e g ov er n m en t, in re sp on se , con c ed ed th atth e s ta tu to ry m in im u m se n te n c e o f five ye ar s w as “c er ta in ly appropri ate ” a nd al so ask ed the cour t t o i m pose l i feti m e s up er vi sed r el eas e. The dis tr i ct c ourtse ntenced H opkins to 21 0 m onths i n pri son and 15 y ear s’ su p er vis ed rele as e, m ak in g n o m en tio natall of Sim p so n ’s t es tim on y. T h e c ou rtsa id on ly that H opkins’ s “ re quest fora sente nce be l ow the advi sory guidel i nes i s no t per suasi ve to th is C ou rt, an d I c h oo se n otto d o s o b ec au se I b elie ve a b elo w gu id elin es ran ge se n te n c e is n otw ar ra n te d u n d er th e fa c ts an d circ u m st an c es of th is c as e.” H o pk i ns c o nt en ds o n a ppea ltha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t i gno r ed hi s pr i nc i pala r g um en t f ora bel ow-gui del i nes s entence . A proper l y c al cul ate d gui del i nes s entence i s pre sum ed re as on ab le, see Ri ta v. U nited Sta tes , 127S. C t. 24 56 , 246 2 (2 00 7); U nited Sta tes v. A rceo , 53 5 F
. 3d 67 9, 6 87( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) , b uta di st r i ctc o ur t m us t g i ve “ m ea ning fulc o ns i der at i o n” to th e 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a) fa c to rs , s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Panaigua- Verdug o , 53 7 F
. 3d 722, 72 7 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08)
. Although the dist ri ct c ourtneed notaddress ev er y a rgum ent adefendant r ai ses , w e hav e hel d that the co urt m ay not pass in si l ence ove r the “ pri nci palar gum ent” m ade by a d efe n d an t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cunn i ngh am , 4 29 F
. 3d 673, 6 79 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. T he s en te nc i ng cour t’ s f ai l ure to add re ss a defendant’s princi pal, nonfri vol ous a rgum ent m ay re quir e a re m and fo r re sente nci ng i fwe cannot be c onfi dent in the j ud ge’ s ind i vi du al i zed at tenti on t o th e § 35 53 (a) fa c to rs . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Jacks on , 547F.3d 78 6, 79 5 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited St at e s v. M i randa, 505 F.3d 78 5, 79 4 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ).N o. 08
- 4260 Page 3

H er e, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s co ncl usory r ej ecti on o fa bel ow-gui del i nes s entence gi ves us insuffi ci ent c onfi dence thati t co nsi dered H opkins’ s a rgum ent that al ong sente nce woul d b e co unt er pr o duct i ve t o hi s r eh ab i l i ta ti o n. Unl i k e th e defen dan t i n Jacks on , 54 7 F
. 3d at 795- 96, H opkins devel oped and press ed thi s a rgum ent a t s entencing. He offer ed ev id en c e o f th e la c k of e m p iric al s u p p or t fo r a lon g s en te n c e a n d cit ed sim ilar ca se s in w hi ch the sente nces did notexce ed ten yea rs . Hopkins then cal l ed an exper t who tes ti fi ed th athe was a g o o d c an di dat e f o rps y ch o l o g i ca lt r ea tmenta nd tha t l o ng - te r m i m pr i so nm en t w oul d und er m i ne hi s r ehabi l i tat i on. The di str i ct c ourt, however, address ed none o fthes e poi nts. Instea d, i t s i m plyr ei ter ate d that the gui del i nes were advi sory, r eci ted the l anguage of§ 3553 ( a) , and dis m i sse d H opkins’ s r equest f ora bel ow-gui del i nes s entence as “no t persuas i ve. ” Perhaps the c ourt ’ s per functor y di sm i ssa lo fH opkins’ s r equest w as an im p li cit rej ectionof his p rincipa l argu m en t, bu t it offers us no assu ran ce th at th e cou rt actu ally exe rcised i ts d iscretion by con side ring H op kins’s argu m en t or Si m p son ’s te st im on y. Se e, e . g. , M i randa, 505 F.3d at79 4; Cunni ngh am , 42 9 F
. 3d at 679. Th e govern m en t observe s tha t the district cou rt need not “h arsh ly rej ect” Si m p son ’s te st im on y or “a rt icu lat e a ll of th e fa c ts ” inm ak in g its se n te n c in g d ec isio n . T ru e e n ou gh
. But, a s i n M i randa, 5 0 5 F
. 3 d a t7 9 6 , a nd Cunni ngh am , 4 29 F
. 3d at6 79 , Hopk i ns r ai se d a nd devel oped a no nfr i vol ous a rgum ent r ega rdi ng the pro pri etyo fa l engthyse ntence f or so m eo ne wi thhi s ci r cumst an ce s an d c ha r ac te r i st i cs . T he c o ur t’ s r o te s ta te m en t l i st i ngthe § 3 553( a) f acto rs gi ves us no ass urance that i t s peci fi cal l y c onsi dered the i r appli cati on a s t o H o pk i ns . T he c o ur t r ej ec te d Hopk i ns ’ s pr i nc i pals en te nc i nga r g um en t—w hi chhe su ppo r te d wi the xpe r t te st i m o ny — i n as i ng l e co nc l us o rys en te nc e. T hi s g i ve s us no th i ng m ea n in gfu l to re vie w . Se eCunn i ngh am , 42 9 F
. 3d at 679. A ccor dingly, we VA CATE a nd RE MAND f orr ese ntencing.