# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 45 47

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Eric Nath an Hans ,
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

8, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Ju ne 11 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Eric Han s pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of pr od uc ti on of ch il d po rn og rap hy. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Han s to 2 9 2 mo n t h s ’ im pr is on m en t, th e m in im

um of hi s 1

Th e Hon or ab le St ep ha ni e M. Ro se , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t h e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge

. Han s ap pe al s th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss

of hi s se nt en ce. W e co nc lu de th at th ere was no erro r or ab us e of di sc r e ti on by th e di st ric t co ur t, an d we t he refo re af fir m

.

The pr os ecu ti on aro se fro m a vi si t by po li ce to Han s’s res id en ce in Dav en po rt, Io wa, on Ju ly 5, 20 14

. Po li ce sp ok e wit h Han s’s wife an d he r m in or da ug ht er A.H., who was Han s’s st ep da ug ht er. A.H. rep or te d t h a t s h e ha d di sc ov ered a m in ia tu re vi de o reco rd in g de vi ce in th e ba th ro om

. Bo th A.H. an d he r m ot he r rep or te d fin di ng si m il ar ca m eras on ot he r oc cas io ns du rin g t he pre vi ou s t hr ee years.

Po li ce se iz ed se ve ral el ect ro ni c de vi ces , in cl ud in g co m pu te rs

. A se arch of on e

co m pu te r rev eal ed twen ty-th ree im ag es of su sp ect ed ch il d po rn og rap hy. In Octo be r 20 14 , po li ce ex am i n ed a co m pu te r m em or y card
, kn own as a m ic ro SD card
, th at be lo ng ed to Han s. The m ic ro SD card co nt ai ne d ni ne im ag es of A.H. an d fo ur im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy do wnl oa de d fro m th e In te rn et in Ja nu ary 20 10

. The im ag es of A.H. de pi ct ed Han s’s ha nd p u l l i n g do wn he r pa jam a pa nt s an d A.H.’ s ex po se d

va gi na . The p ic tu res of A.H. were c reat ed in or a ro un d Dec em be r 20 10

.

Han s pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of pr od uc ti on of ch il d p o r no gr ap hy, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a). At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed an

a dv is or y gu id el in e ran ge of 29 2 to 36 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Han s ar g u e d f o r a

va ria nc e be lo w th e ran ge , bu t th e co ur t se nt en ced Han s at th e bo tt om of th e ran ge to 29 2 m on th s. Han s ad va nc es fo ur reas on s on ap pe al why hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le
, al th ou gh hi s arg um en t act ua ll y bl en ds a cl ai m th at hi s se nt en ce was to o lo ng wit h a ss ert io ns of p ro ced ur al erro r at sen te nc in g.

Fi rs t, Han s co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y ba s e d i t s se nt en ce on fact s f r om th e pr es en te nc e rep or t to whi ch Han s ha d ob jecte d be fo re th e he ari ng

. Thi s is a cl ai m of pr oc ed ur al erro r, se e U ni te d St at es v. Su ar ez , 56 4 F. App ’x 26 2, 26 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ), an d Han s di d no t ob ject a t t h e he ari ng to th e di st ric t co ur t’s

-2

-co ns id erat io n of fact s. To th e co nt rary, whe n as ke d at th e he ari ng whe th er th ere was

“ an y th in g” th at th e co ur t wou ld ne ed to res ol ve “ [a]si de fro m va ria nc e m at te rs ,” Han s di d no t pres en t any di sp ut e ab ou t fact s in th e pr es en te nc e rep or t. By fai li ng to al ert th e co ur t t o fa ct ua l d is pu te s t ha t re qu ire d re so lu ti on , Ha ns effe ct iv el y wit hd rew h is writ te n ob

jecti on s. Thu s, t h e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y rel ie d up on th e rep or t whe n craf ti ng it s s en te nc e. Uni te d S ta te s v. Whi te , 44 7 F .3d 10 29 , 10 32 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

Seco nd
, Han s co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co ns id er tha t Han s ha d

ne ve r se rv ed a si gn ifi can t p eri od of i nc arce rat io n. Han s ra is ed th is arg um en t i n hi s

se nt en ci ng m em or an du m , an d hi gh li gh te d hi s la ck of cri m in al hi st or y at th e he ari ng

. The di st ric t co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at it ha d “ rece iv ed an d read t h e S e n t en ci ng Mem or an du m s of th e pa rti es ,” an d reci te d each of Han s’s pr io r co nv ic ti on s. The

reco rd th us de m on s t r a t e s th at th e di st ric t co ur t he ard an d co ns id ered Han s’s
arg um en ts bu t s im

pl y fou nd th em

un co nv in ci ng

.

Thi rd
, Han s co m

pl ai ns th at t he di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y st at ed th at USSG § 4B 1.5 , whi ch ap p l i e s t o a “ rep eat an d da ng ero us se x of fen de r ag ai ns t m in or s,”

“ tru m pe d” ot he r gu id el in e pr ov is io ns

. The re was no erro r he re, be cau se th e di st ric t

co ur t m erel y ex pl ai ne d why Han s’s arg um en t ab ou t th e ab se n c e of cert ai n ad jus tm en ts un de r Ch ap te r 2 d id no t p ers ua de th e co ur t to va ry do wnwar d from th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge

. Alt ho ug h Han s’s of fen se co nd u ct di d no t tri gg er cert ai n of fen se ch arac te ris ti cs un de r USSG § 2G2 .1, th e co ur t fo un d th at Han s was a “ rep eat

an d d a n g e r o u s se x of

fen de r ag ai ns t m in or s” wit hi n th e m ean in g of § 4B 1.5

. The

co ur t’s us e of th e te rm “ tru m pe d” ev id en tl y ga ve effe ct to t h e c o u r t ’s reas on ab le

co nc lu si on th at an y le ni en cy th at m ig ht ha v e b e e n w arra nt ed by th e cal cu la ti on s

un de r Ch ap te r 2 was ov erco m e by th e ag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ce of Han s’s reco rd as a rep eat off

en de r un de r § 4 B1 .5.

Fi na ll y , Han s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d an un reas on ab le se nt en ce th at was le ng th ie r th an th e f a ct s of th e cas e warra nt ed

. W e rev ie w th e co ur t’s

-3

-de ci si on un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd
, Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2

U.S. 38 , 51 (2 00 7)
, an d we pr es um e th at a s e n t en ce wit hi n th e ad vi so ry gu id el in e

ran ge is reas on ab le be cau se it acco rd s wit h th e reco mm e nd at io n of th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on

. Uni te d St at es v. Ki mba ll
, 83 0 F.3d 74 7, 75 0 (8t h Cir. 20 16 ); se e Rit a

v

. Uni te d St at es , 55 1 U.S. 33 8, 34 7 (2 00 7)

. In li gh t of Han s’s rep eat ed o f f e n s e

co nd uc t ag ai ns t a ch il d un de r hi s cu st od y, care , or su pe rv is or y co nt ro l, th e di st ric t

co ur t act ed wit hi n it s di sc ret io n to reject Han s’s arg um en ts fo r a do wnwar d va ria nc e.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-