NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0656n.06 No. 09-2007 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. JERRY DE AN B YA RS, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN
O P I N I O N

Be for e : B OG G S, SI LER , a nd M OORE, C ir c uitJudg e s. KA REN NELSO N MOORE, Circ uit Jud ge. Def endant- Appe l l an t J err

y Dea n By ars appea ls his sentence of

ninety -seve n months of imprisonment followi n g h is plea of guilty to one
c ount o f r e c e ivi ngima g e s o f m ino rs e ng a g e d in se xua lly e xplic it c on du ct. By ars argue s th a t hi s
se nte nc e wa s p ro c e dura lly un re a so na

ble be c a us e the dis tr ic t c ourt

fa ile d to c on sid e r a

nd re sp on d to his arguments in favor of a varia nce. For the reasons stated below, we AF F IRM Byars’ s sentence
. I. BACKG ROUND On September

23, 2008, By ars wa s indicted on one c ount o f re ce i v i n g imag es of minors eng ag ed in sexually

expli cit conduct in violation of 18 U.S .C. § 2252(a)( 2) and one count of po sse ssi ngc hild po rnog ra ph y in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 22 52 A( a )( 5) (B ). B y ars su bs e qu e ntl y enter ed into a plea

ag ree ment under w hich he a g ree d to plead guilty t o t h e fi rs t count. The g overnme nt, in return, ag ree d to dismiss the sec ond count, to ref rain fr om opposing a

ny reduc tionNo. 09-2007

Un ite d S tat es v . B y ar s

2 i n By ars’ s Guidelines offe nse leve l pursuant to § 3E1.1(a) of the U.S. Sentenc ing Guidelines (“U .S.S.G.”), and to move for an additional reduc tion pursuant to § 3E1.1(b) should the cour t gr ant the § 3E1.1(a) reduc tion. There was no ag ree ment, howeve r, as to the final Guidelines sentenc ing rang e. A P r e s e n t e n c e In v e s t i g a t i o n R e p o r t ( “ P S R ” ) d e t e r

m i n e d t h a tB yar s ’ s o f

f e n s e l e v e l w a s t h i rt y. The PSR further noted that By ars ha d a prior state conviction in 2000 for “ Disorder lyPersonObsce ne Conduct” that stemmed from an inc ident in which he alleg edly exposed himself to a niney ear -old g irl. PS R at ¶ 68. The PSR assig ned By ars a criminal hi story cate g ory of I , which re sulted in a Gu ide lin e s r ang e of

97 to 1 21 mon ths of

imp ri so nme nt. Byars’ s attorney

filed a se ntencingmemorandum re questing a var iance . I n that
me mor a nd um, By ars ’s a tt orn ey

drew att ent io n t o By ars ’s p ast com mu ni ty ser vi ce, wh ic h p ur

po rt e dly included ac tiviti es such a s deliveringChristmas baskets to needy famil i es an d even rescuingan elder ly woman fr om a burningbuilding. Severa l letters wer e attac hed that fur ther attested to By ars’ s service . The memora

ndum also focuse d upon Byars’ s failing health an d h i s age . Finally , in the memorandum, B y ars’ s attorney criticized the Guidelines a s a whole and the manner in which they treat child-pornog raphy

offe nses. I n particula

r, he a rg ued that the releva

nt provisions had no
e mpi ri c a l ba sis and

fa ile d t o dis tin g uis h b e tw e e n “ re a l pr e dator s” and tho se wh o me re ly

vie we d c hil d pornog raphy . Doc. 38 ( Def
. ’s Sent. Mem. at 6). In support of this argument, By ars’ s attorney attache d an AB A J ournal a rticle a nd noted ot her cases in which dis trict judg es had g rante d varia nces fo r s imi lar r e a so ns .No. 09-2007

Un ite d S tat es v . B y ar s

3 The g overnme nt opposed the var ianc e an d responde d by emphasizing B y ars’ s prior conviction, his use of a

n adolesc ent “pe rsona” while sea rchingfor por

nog raphy online, and the f act that Byars c o n t inued collec ting c hild pornog raphy even a fter police seized his computer in 2005. Th e g ov e rnme nt a lso no te d th a t, ac c or din g to the PSR, wh ile ou t on bo nd , B y ars a lle g e dly

tr ie d to choke a nother individual in a half -w ay h o u s e and a lleg edly violated the ter

ms of his relea se by

“ se e kin g ou t” ind ivi du a ls wh o a pp e are d to be min or s and “ e ng a g ing [the m] in c on ve rs a tio n. ” PSR at ¶ 14. The district cour

t held a sente ncin g hear ing on July 21, 2009. The district judg e beg an by noting that he had “ta

ken some time to rea d the var ious letters . . . attac hed to the sente ncing [me mor and

um] w hic h b e sp e a k M r. B y ars ’ co nn e c tio ns in his c omm un ity .” Di st. Ct. Do c . 4 5 ( Se nt. Hr’gTr. (7/21/2009) at 4). By ars’ s attorney proce eded to argue for a var iance , and in doing so he tr ie d to a dd

re ss som e of the c on du c t to wh ic h th e g ov e rnme nt h a d p oin te d in its me mor and

um whil e also emphasizing, a

mong othe r t hings, By ars’ s community service
. Byars’ s attorney also observe d that “people who’ve robbed banks
. . . don’t g et this kind of sentence ,” id. at 7, which pr ompted the fo llo wi ngdia logue wi th t he c ourt : The Court: “[Y]ou’re quar elling essentially with [the] se ntenc[ing] g uidelines and w i t h t h e C o n g r e s s an d

t h e s t a tu t e , ar e n ’ ty o u ?” [By ars’ s attorn e y ]: “ Ia m. Ia m, Y o u r H o n o r , an d

Ith ink o u r me mo is f

a ir ly c le ar about that, and we seek a

varia nce be cause of that.” T h e C o u rt : “ B u ti s t h e r e n o t
. . . a t r o u b l i n g c o n v i c t i o ni nt h e y e ar 2 0 0 0 ?”No. 09-2007

Un ite d S tat es v . B y ar s

4 Id. B y ars ’s a tto rn e y a c kn ow le dg e d that the re wa s suc h a c on vic tio n a

nd pr oc e e de d to do wn

pla y its signific ance . By ars’ s attorney ag ain noted B y ars’ s community serv i ce , ag e, and poor

health, and
ar g u e d t h a tB yar s w a s n o ta

t h r e a tt o t h e c o m m u n i t y. The c ourt then g ave B y ars a n opportunity

to speak. Dur ing that time, B y ars r emar ked that

“ tim e ’s ru nn ingou t f

or me . I have a bo ut t hr e e y e ars le ft be fo re thi s b od y dis int e g ra

te s, and Iwo uld like to contribute a littl e bit more to society befor e it does.” Id. at 12. The court replied by noting that B y ars wa s si xty -s ix y e ars old and the n s tate d th a t “ [w]e ll, I do n’ t kn ow qu ite ho w to s ay thi s to y ou, Mr. Byars, but you’re not that old.” Id. Th e c ourt pr oc e e de d to a sk

B y ars a se ri e s o f q

ue sti on s, f o c using pa

rticularly upon By ars’ s past conviction and the f act that B y ars c ontinued his conduct eve n afte r police se ized his computer. The district cour

t then imposed a sentenc e of nine ty -seve n months o f i m p ri s onment, the bottom of the Guidelines sentenc ing r ang e. In doing so, it not ed that althoug h Byars ha d a cr iminal his tor y c a te g or y of on ly I , h e no ne the le ss h a d a

n o bs c e ne -c on du c t c on vic tio n “ that be ars a sim ila ri ty to this behavior that is troubling to this Court.” Id. at 18. The c ourt was a lso troubled by the fa ct that By ars c ontinued collectingchild pornog raphy even a fter his c omputer wa s seized in 2005. The court fur ther re marke d that By ars c ommitt ed a “ser ious offe nse” that “re quire[d] the promotion of respe ct for la

w,” id. , and that “a just punishment require [d] that some kind of an a dequate deter renc e be meted out in this matter to protec t the public,” id. a t 18-19
. Fin a lly , th e c ourt state d th a t it

“ be lie ve [d] th a t th e de fe nd ant[ w a s] in ne e d of not on ly me dic a l, but c or re c tio na l tr e a tme nt i n th is
m att er.” Id. a t 1 9
. I n a d d it io n to th e p r is o n s e n te n c e , th e c o u rt a ls o r e c o mm e n d e d th a t B y ar s “beNo. 09-2007

Un ite d S tat es v . B y ar s

5 evaluated for the plet h o ra o f m edica l needs that he has” a nd that he re ceive sexual-offende r and mental-he alth treatment. Id . B y ars no w a pp e a ls. II. AN AL YSI S A. Standard of

Review Normally , “[w]e review the district court’s sente nce unde r an a buse-of -discre tion standard.” United Sta te s v . B arah on a-

Mo nte ne gr o , 5 6 5 F
. 3 d

9 8 0 , 9 8 3 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 )
. T h e g o ve rn me nt, howeve r, ar g ues that in this case, w e should revie w the district cour t’s sentenc e only

for plain e rror . Be cause we would uphold B y ars’ s sentence under e ither standar d of review, we decline to r esolve this iss ue, and a ssume that abuse- of-discr etion revie w is the appropr iate standa rd. B. P r oc e dur al R e as ona ble ne ss On appe al, B y ars a

rgue s that his sentence is procedur ally unrea sonable. In deter

mining whether a sente nce is proc edura lly rea sonable, [w] e m u st ensure that the district court (1) proper ly calc ulated the a

pplicable a dvisory Gu ide lin es rang e ; ( 2) c on sid e re d th e § 3 55 3( a ) f a c tor s a s w e ll a s th e pa rt ie s’ arguments for a sentenc e outside the Guidelines rang e; and (3) adequately articulated its re a so nin g fo r i mpo sin g the c ho se n s e nte nc e , in c lud ingany re je c tio n o f t

he pa rt ie s’ arguments for a

n outside-Guidelines sente nce a nd any decision t o deviate f rom the advisory Guidelines ra

ng e. United States v. Pe trus , 588 F.3 d 3 4 7 , 351-52 (6th Cir. 2009). B y ars f ocuses pr imarily

upon the second a nd third prong s of this analy sis, a rgu i n g t h at the district cour t failed to consider

Byars’ s
argume nts in f

a vo r o f a va ri anc e and

fa ile d to e xpla in a de qu a te ly its ba se s f

or re jecti ngtho se
argume nts
.No. 09-2007

Un ite d S tat es v . B y ar s

6 As the Supreme Court e x plained in Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338 ( 2 0 0 7 ), “[t] he sentenc ing judg e should s et fo rt h en o u g h to satisfy the appe llate cour

t that he has c onsidered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for ex erc ising his own leg al dec isionmaking a uthority .” Ri ta , 5 51 U. S. at 35 6. A d istri c t c ourt ha s so me dis c re ti on in d e c idi ngho w m uc h e xplanatio n to p rovi de. Id. Nonethele ss, Rita s t a t e d t h a t“ [w ]h e r e t h e d e f

e n d an to r p r o s e c u t o r

pr e se nts nonfrivolous rea sons for imposing a differ ent sentenc e . . . the j udg e will normally . . . explain why he has r ejec ted those ar g uments.” Id. at 357. This court ha s al s o em p h as i z ed that “[ w]here a defe ndant ra ises a par

ticular a rg ument in seeking a lower sentenc e, the recor d must reflec t both that the district judge considere d the def endant’ s argument and that the judg e explained the basis for reje cting it .” Un ite d S

tates v . R e c la , 560 F.3d 539, 547 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (interna l quotation marks omi tte d) . Wh e n a

de fe nd ant r a ise s a

“ c on c e ptu a lly

sim ple ” argume nt, ho we ve r, a dis tr ic t c ourt

is permitted to provide less e x planation than mig ht otherwise be nece ssary . Ri ta , 551 U.S. at 359. Byars f irst argues that the district court did not adequately explain why Byars’ s old ag e and poor hea lth did n o t warrant a va rianc e. The rec ord, howe ver, doe s not support this claim. As for Byars’ s claim that he wa s old, the district court simply disag ree d and told Byars that he was “not that old.” Doc. 45 ( Sent. Hr’gTr. (7/21/09) at 1 2 ). Fu rt h er m ore, it is clea r fr om the rec ord that the dis tr ic t c ourt

c on sid e re d B y ars ’s po or he a lth , c ite d B y ars ’s ne e d fo r me dic a l tr e a tme nt a s on e of its rationale s for the sentence it chose, and rec ommended that B y ars r ece ive a medic al eva luation once in custody . When a district court’s se ntence is craf ted in such a way

that it ex plicitly

acc ommodates fac tors to which the def

endant ha s drawn a

ttention, it is difficult to claim that the district cour t failedNo. 09-2007

Un ite d S tat es v . B y ar s

7 to r espond to those fac tors. See U nited States v. Liou , 491 F.3d 334, 340 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (holding that district court ade quately responde d to the defe ndant’s emphas i s on his family circ umstances wh e n the dis tr ic t cou

rt g a ve the de fe nd ant s ixty da y s to se lf -r e po rt in o rd e r t o a c c omm od a te tho se circ umstances)
. By ar s fu rt h er

ar gu es t h at t h e di s t ri ct co u rt erre d i nn o tre s p o n d i n g t o h i s ca t ego ri ca l ch al l en ge t o t h e t re at m en tb y t h e Gu i d el i n es o f ch i l d -p o rn o grap h y d ef en d an t s . Du ri n g t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, howeve r, the c ourt confir med that B y ars wa s “quar reling esse ntially

with [ the] sentencing g uid e lin e s, ” and

the n r e pli e d b y

no tin g By ars ’s “tr ou

bli ng ” 20 00 c on vic tio n f

or ob sc e ne c on du c t. Doc. 45 ( Se n t
. Hr ’g T r. (7/21/09) at 7). Byars a rg ues that the district cour t simpl y “cha ng ed the
su bje c t,” Re ply

B r. a t 6, b ut thi s is inc or re c t. B y ars e sse nti a lly

argue d th a t it

wa s unju st t o tr e a t a
mere “voy eur” of child pornog raphy in suc h a harsh manner . Doc. 38 (De f.’s Sent. Me m. at 6) . As the g overnme nt corre ctly

observe s, the district judge , by emphasizing By ars’ s previous convic tion, i n d i ca t edt h at By ar s wa s n o tm er el y a v i ew er o f c h i l d p o rn o grap h y , an d

t h er ef o re t h e d i s t ri ct j u d ge did not believe a va

rianc e to be appr opriate. The district court could have stated its re asoning more
e xpli cit ly , bu t its fa ilure to d o s o d oe s n ot n e c e ssi tate re ve rs a l in lig ht o f t

he c ourt ’s sp e c if

ic
re fe re nc e to B y ars ’s pr e vio us c on du c t- ba se d c on vic tio n a nd a lso to h is r e pe a te d r e c e ipt of c hil d po rn og ra ph y e ve n a ft e r t

he se izur e of

his c omp ute r b y

law- e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic ia ls. F ina lly , B y ars argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t g ive a de qu ate atte nti on to h is p a st
co m m u n i t y

s erv i ce . W e a gre e t h at , i d ea l l y , t h e d i s t ri ct j u d ge s h o u l d h av e o ff er eda m o re t h o ro u gh explanation of its reasoning fo r fi n d i ng By ars’ s community service uncompelling . Not only wasNo. 09-2007

Un ite d S tat es v . B y ar s

8 Byars’ s community

service commendable , but also his resc ue of a woman from a burning building appea red heroic
. Nonethele ss, the district judge stated that it had re ad the letter s attache d to By ars’ s
se nte nc ingme mor and

um a nd a c kn ow le dg e d th a t th os e le tte rs “ be sp e a k Mr. B y ars ’ c onne c tio ns in h i s co m m u n i t y . ” D o c . 4 5 (S en t
. Hr ’g T r. ( 7 / 2 1 / 0 9 ) a t4 ). T h i s i n d i ca t es th at t h e d i s t ri ct j u d ge considere d By ars’ s past g ood works. Althoug h our prece dents would normally require more explanation for the district court’s denial of a varia nce, we ag ree with the g overnme nt that By ars’ s arguments with r espec t to his community service wer e “c onceptua lly simple,” Ri ta , 551 U.S. at 356, and ther efor e did not nece ssitate a more elabor ate ex planation. The analy sis rema ined quite simple:
e ith e r t he dis tr ic t c ourt

fo un d th a t B y ars ’s po sit ive de e ds ou tw e ig he d the oth e r n e g a tiv e fa c tor s in his recor d or it did not. I ndeed, B y ars’ s past community service is quite simi lar to the de fenda nt’s decor ated military

service in Ri ta , which the Court also deeme d to be “conce ptually simple.” 551 U.S. at 358-59. Given that the district court expressly acknow ledg ed re ading l et t er s ref ere ncing Byars’ s community

service and also e mphasized both By ars’ s prior convic ti o n an d h i s repe ated possession of child pornog raphy , it is clea r from the rec ord that the district cour t simpl y conclude d th a t B y ar s ’ s c o mm

u n it y s e r v ic e c o u ld n o t o v e r c o me h is p r io r mi s c o n d u c t. Under

such circ umstances, we do not think the district judg e was re quired to speak “more extensively .” Ri ta , 551 U.S. at 359. T h e r e f o r e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t c o mm it

r e v e r s ib le p r o c e d

u r a l e r r o r . We
re ite rate on c e mor e , h ow e ve r, tha t th e “ be tte r p ra c tic e ” is f

or the dis tr ic t c ourt

to a dd re ss e xplic itl y all non-fr ivolous a

rg uments. Petrus , 588 F.3d at 353. Doing so w ill prevent unnec essar y litigation.No. 09-2007

Un ite d S tat es v . B y ar s

9

III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons stated a

bove, we AF F IRM Byars’ s sentence
.