## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 18 35

__ __ __ __ __ _

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

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Ken ne th Leon W il co x, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 12 , 20 11
Fi le d: Jan ua ry

27 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ _
SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Ken ne th Leo n W il co x pl ed g ui lt y to on e co un t of tra ns po rta ti on of a m in or
wit h in te nt to en ga ge in cri m in al se xu al act iv it y , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 24 23 (a),

an d on e co un t of pr od uc ti on of ch il d po rn og rap hy, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a)

an d (e). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced h i m t o 48 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t. W il co x 1

ap pe al s h is sen te nc e, arg ui ng th at it is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . W e aff

irm.

The Hon or ab le Mi ch ael J. Dav is , C hi ef Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es D i s t r i ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.I.

In 20 05

, Ken ne th W il co x be ga n se xu al ly ab us in g hi s 12 -y ear- ol d da ug ht er on

a week ly ba si s. The ab us e co nt in ue d fo r ap pr ox im at el y fo ur y ears

. Dur in g th is ti m e,

W il co x reco rd ed th e se xu al ab us e in at le as t fiv e di ffer en t vi de ot ap es , whi ch de pi ct ed

th e v i c t i m u s in g va rio us se x to y s on he rs el f, W il co x rece iv in g or al se x fro m th e
vi ct im

, an d W il co x en ga gi ng in va gi na l se x wit h th e vi ct im

. Dur in g th e ex ecu ti on of

se arch warra nt s at W il co x’s res id en ce an d a se m i-t rai le r us ed by W il co x fo r st or ag e,

la w en fo rcem en t of

fic ers al so reco ve re d m an y to pl es s im ag es of th e vi ct im

, al on g
wit h m ul ti pl e im ag es of ch il d po rn og rap hy co nt ai ni ng id en ti fie d m in or vi ct im s.

W il co x was an ov er-t he -ro ad tru ck er, an d he to ok ad va nt ag e of th e fact th at th e vi ct im

w a s i s o l a te d wit h hi m on in te rs ta te tru ck in g ru ns ; m uc h of th e ab us e an d th e

pr od uc ti on of th e ch il d po rn og rap hy oc cu rred whi le Wi lc ox an d th e vi ct im were

tra ve li ng to ge th er. The se xu al ab us e on ly cam e to an en d in Decem be r of 20 09

, aft er

th e v ic ti m

in fo rm ed a fri en d’s m ot he r an d b ro ug ht he r on e o f th e v id eo s.

In ad di ti on to th e se xu al ab us e an d th e pr od uc ti on of th e vi de os , W il co x ha d

th e vi ct im si gn “ co nt ract s” de ta il in g th e se x act s sh e wou ld be req ui red to pe rfo rm in

th e fu tu re. The se co nt ract s in st ru ct ed th e vi ct im to dr es s in a cert ai n m an ne r, req ui red

th e vi ct im to be su bm is si ve to W il co x, an d di sc us se d se xu al act s th e vi ct im wou ld be

fo rced to pe rfo rm

as p un is hm en t fo r “ br each ” o f an y of t he co nt ract te rm s. Sev eral

of th e co nt ract s di sc us se d pa y m en t fo r nu de pi ct ur es of th e vi ct im ’s fri en ds

, th e

fo rm at io n o f a “ se x h ou se ” wit h t he vi ct im , and a pr om is e to all ow Wilc ox to tea ch

an y po te nt ia l fu tu re d au gh te rs of t he vi ct im ab ou t s ex

.

On Ju ne 15

, 20 10

, a fed eral gr an d jury ret ur ne d a te n- c o u n t In di ct m en t

ch arg in g Wil co x wi th fiv e co un ts of i nt ers ta te tra ns po rta ti on of a m in or wit h i nt en t

t o en ga ge in cri m in al se xu al act iv it y an d fiv e co un ts of pr od uc ti on of ch il d

po rn og rap hy. On O c t o b e r 14

, 20 10

, W il co x pl ed gu il ty to on e co un t of in te rs ta te

tra ns po rta ti on of a m in or wit h in te nt to en g a g e i n c riminal se xu al act iv it y an d on e

-2

-co un t o f pr od uc ti on of ch il d po rn og rap hy. In th e pl ea ag reem en t, Wilc ox ad m it te d

th at h e c o mm i t te d th e act s ch arg ed in th e ot he r ei gh t co un ts of th e In di ct m en t an d

ack no wled ge d th at th es e act s co ns ti tu te d rel ev an t co nd uc t fo r th e pu rp os es of

cal cu la ti ng hi s Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge

. Bo th pa rti es ag reed th at W il co x’s

of fen se le ve l was 48

, whi ch ex ceed s th e hi gh es t le ve l of th e Gui de li ne s. W il co x was

th eref or e t r e a t e d a s th ou gh he po ss es se d an of fen se le ve l of 43

, whi ch is th e

m ax im um of fen se le ve l co nt ai ne d in th e Sen te n c i n g Ta b l e an d carr ie s an ad vi so ry

se nt en ce o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t.

Pri or to s e n t en ci ng , W il co x req ue st ed a do wnwar d va ria nc e to 24 0 m on th s

im pr is on m en t pu rs ua nt to th e fact or s of 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). In a writ te n se nt en ci ng

memo r a n d u m , W il co x arg ue d th at th e va ria nc e was ap pr op ria te be cau se he was a

f i r s t

- ti m e se x of

fen de r, ha d no si gn ifi can t cri m in al hi st or y , an d ha d de m on st rat ed

co m m it men t to reh ab il it at io n by se ek in g tre at m en t in jail

. W il co x fu rth er cl ai m ed

th at he ex pe rie nc ed se xu al ab us e as a m in or , pr es en te d a lo w ris k of reci di vi sm , an d

fel t ge nu in e rem or se o v e r hi s act io ns

. Fi na ll y , W il co x arg ue d th at th e Sen te nc in g
Gui de li ne s fo r pr od uc ti on of ch il d po rn og rap hy la ck ed an em pi ric al ba si s an d di d no t

effe ct iv el y refl ect th e go al s of se nt en ci ng

. In res po ns e, th e Gov ern m en t arg ue d th at

th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se were pa rti cu la rly he in ou s, th at W il co x’s

rem or se an d co m

m it m en t to tre at m en t de ve lo pe d on l y a f t e r hi s arre st , t ha t th e “ se x

co nt ract s” ex pr es si ng W il co x’s in te nt to te ach th e vi ct im ’s da ug ht ers a b o u t se x
de m on st rat ed a de si re to reo ffen d, an d th at a se nt en ce of li fe im pr is on m en t wou ld be

co ns is te nt wit h s en te nc es im po se d i n s im il ar ca se s.

At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , W il co x ag ai n arg ue d fo r a do wnwar d va ria nc e to 20

y ears , ci ti ng th e arg um en ts fro m hi s writ te n se nt en ci ng m em or an du m

. W il co x

ex pr es se d hi s de si re to ap ol og iz e to th e vi ct im an d st at ed th at he was pa rti ci pa ti ng in

a se lf- he lp pr og ram

. Th e Gov ern m en t res ta te d it s po si ti on th at a se nt en ce of li fe

im pr is on m en t wou ld be su ffi ci en t to co m pl y wit h th e pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng

. Afte r

co nf irming th at th e ap pr op ria te Gui de li ne s se nt en ce was li fe im pr is on m en t, th e co ur t

-3

-de ci de d to va ry do wnwar d, bu t no t to th e ex te nt req ue st ed by W il co x. Ult im at el y , th e

co ur t se nt en ced W il co x to 48 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t on Co u n t 1 a n d 36 0 m on th s

im pr is on m en t on Co un t 2, to be se rv ed co nc ur ren tl y a n d f o ll owe d by a li fet im e of

su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

II.

On ap pe al

, W il co x ch al l e n g e s hi s se nt en ce of 48 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t as

su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

.

“ W e rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce fo r ab us e

of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v

. Wi s ecar ve r, 64 4 F.3 d 76 4, 77 4 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 2 S. Ct

. 53 3 (2 01 1)

. “ [A]n ab us e of di sc ret io n oc cu rs whe re th e se nt en ci ng

co ur t fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht

, gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t f

a c t o r , or co ns id ers on ly th e

ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s.”

Uni te d St at es v. Bryant

, 60 6 F.3 d 91 2, 92 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on m ark s om it te d)

.

W il co x arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d

to gi ve pr op er weig ht to W il co x’s la ck of m ean in g f ul cri m in al hi st or y , hi s ge nu in e

r e mo r s e a n d effo rts at reh ab il it at io n, an d hi s lo w ris k of reci di vi sm

. In pa rti cu la r,

W il co x arg ue s th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by gi vi ng li tt le m it ig at in g weig ht to

a ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on of W il co x p red ic ti ng a lo w l ik el ih oo d of reo ffen se an d a

p u b l i s he d st ud y on th e red uc ed ris k of reci di vi sm in cas es of in ces t. W il co x a l s o

co nt en ds th at th e co ur t fai le d to co ns id er th e se xu al ab us e th at he ex pe rie nc ed as a
ch il d.

In bo th hi s writ te n m em or an du m an d at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , W il co x

pr es en te d th e a r g u men ts reg ard in g hi s rem or se , lo w ris k of reci di vi sm , m in im al

cri m in al hi st or y , an d pa st ch il dh oo d a b u s e

. In se nt en ci ng W il co x, th e co ur t

-4

-an no un ced th at it ha d rev ie wed th e fact or s un de r 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). The di st ric t 2

co ur t al so st at ed th at it ha d co ns id ered “ev e r yt hi ng in [Wilco x’s] fil e” an d ha d

rev ie wed th e ps y ch ol og ic al rep or t su bm it te d by W il co x. “ Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t was

aware o f [Wilco x’s] arg um en ts

, an d we th eref or e pr es um e th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co ns id ered an d reject ed th em .” Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 61 9 F.3 d 91 0, 92 2 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ).

Mo reo ve r, th e se nt en ci ng tra ns cri pt de m on st rat es th at th e di st ric t co ur t was
sk ep ti cal of W il co x’s cl ai m s of rem or s e a n d p l a c e d a gr eat de al of weig ht on th e

m on st ro us na tu re o f W il co x’s o ffen se :

The st at em en t, si r, of y ou wis hi ng th at yo u r d a u gh te r was he re so y ou

can ap ol og iz e

. . . rin g s s o ho ll ow th at real ly th e Co ur t sh ou ld no t

res po nd to it

. You ab us ed y ou r da ug ht er in th e m os t de sp ic ab le way
po ss ib le fo r a le ng th y pe rio d of ti m e, is ol at ed he r. Sh e un fo rtu na te ly is jus t de st ro y ed fo r th e res t of he r li fe. And th e jus t pu ni sh m en t in th is

m at te r is for y ou to sp en d p ract ic al ly the res t o f y ou r li fe i n p ris on

.

In it s st at em en t of reas on s fo r im po si ng W il co x’s se nt en ce, th e co ur t fu rth er ex pl ai ne d

th at it rel ie d u po n i ts vi ewin g o f th e v id eo ta pe s co nf is cat ed by law en fo rcem en t an d

th e ho rri fy in gl y de ta il ed “ se x co nt ract s” th at W il co x ha d th e vi ct im si g n

. Th u s , th e

reco rd rev eal s th at th e di st ric t co ur t be li e v e d t h a t th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of

W il co x’s of

fen se de se rv ed gr eat er co ns id erat io n un de r se ct io n 35 53 (a) th an an y of th e

m it ig at in g fact or s pr es en te d by W il co x, whi ch i s a de te rm in at io n well wit hi n th e
di sc ret io n of th e d i s t r i c t co ur t. W e ha ve he ld th at “ [t]he di st ric t co ur t’s ch oi ce to

as si gn rel at iv el y gr eat er weig ht to th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e of fen se th an to

th e m it ig a ti ng pe rs on al ch arac te ris ti cs of th e de fen da nt is well wit hi n th e ‘w id e

The se fact or s in cl ud e th e de fen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st or y , th e na tu re of hi s 2

of fen se , an d whe th er th e se nt en ce wou ld pr ov id e jus t pu ni s h m en t, de te r cri m in al

co nd uc t, pr ot ect th e pu bl ic fro m fu rt h e r cri m es , an d pr ov id e th e de fen da nt wit h

ne ed ed co rrec ti on al tre at m en t. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) an d (2 ).

-5

-la ti tu de [g iv en ] to in di vi du al di st ric t co ur t jud g e s i n w ei gh in g rel ev an t fact or s.’”

W is ecar ve r, 64 4 F.3 d at 77 4 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Fo y , 61 7 F.3 d 10 29

, 10 37 (8 th

Ci r. 20 10 ), cert

. de ni ed

, 13 1 S. Ct

. 15 12 (2 01 1) ). “ The di st ric t co ur t m ay gi ve so m e

fact or s le ss weig ht th an a de fen da nt pr efer s or m or e to ot he r fact or s bu t th at al on e do es

no t ju st ify reve rs al .” Uni te d S ta te s v. And ers on , 6 18 F.3 d 87 3, 88 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ),

cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct. 1 55 0 (2 01 1) . After a ll , “ [t]he sen te nc in g ju dg e is in th e b es t

po si ti on to fin d fact s an d ‘j ud ge th ei r im po rt un de r § 35 53 (a) in th e in di vi du al cas e.’”

Id

. (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni t ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 51 (2 00 7) ). Und er th es e
ci rcu m st an ces , we c a n no t fin d th at a be lo w-Gui de li ne s se nt en ce of 48 0 m on th s

i mpri so nm en t is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

, an d we th eref or e fin d no ab us e of

di sc ret io n.

III.

W e aff irm th e se nt en ce i m

po se d b y th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-6

-