## 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. 08

- 1477 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. L ARRY G. S MITH, 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 Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on.

No . 05 C R 179

—RudyL ozano, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 17, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. L arryG. S m i th pl eaded gui l ty to one count of dist ributi ng chi l d pornogr aphy i n vio l ation of 18 U
. S. C
. § 2252(a)(2) after l aw enforcem en t officers di sc o ve r ed m o r e th an3 , 00 0 i m ages ofc hi l d po r no g r aph y o n S m i th ’ s c o mpu t e r h a r d d r i v e s , wh i c h h a d b e e n s e tup to sha re the im ages ove r the intern et. T he district cou rt sente nced Sm i th to 24 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. S m i th a p p e a l s h i s s e n t e n c e . We a ffi r m.2 N o. 08

- 1477 I. Larr y S m i th fi rs t ca m e t o the a tte nti on o fla w enf or cem ent o fficial s when an FBI ag ent e nter ed an i nter net c hat ro om devot ed to pre tee n se x u alpi cture s. I nsi de the chat ro om , the age nt was abl e t o exchange du m m y files ( fi l es th atc o ul d no t be o pen ed butha d na m es s ug g es ting that they conta i ned chil d pornog ra phy) f oractual i m age s and vi deos ofchi l d pornog ra phy. Fur theri nvest i gat i on re veal ed that the com pu ter oper ati ng the ser ve r w h i ch d istribu ted th e c h il d porn ograp hy w as located at Sm ith’s house. W he n, in th e ea r l y mor ni ngho ur s, a g en ts e xe cut ed th e war r an t th eyo bt aine d t o s earch th e ho us e, the y f o und Sm i th i n hi s bedro om w i th a 16- yea r- ol d g i rl

. T h ey also fou n d tw o b oo ks ab ou t A d olp h H it l e r a n d sa ta n ic r i tu a l s , a l o a d e d h a n d g u n, a n d s i x c o mpu t e r s . O n e o ft he com p uter s’ har d dri ves conta i ned app ro xi m ate l y 3 , 114 i m age s o fchi l d pornog ra phy, wh i l e a notherco m pu ter had ov e r 5 0 0 i mag e s o n i t s h a r d d r i v e . T he p i c t ur es i ncl ud ed m any of prepubescentch il dren

— as young as tw o ye ar s o ld

— vi ol entl y b ei ng f or ced to enga ge i n sexual conduct, se ver alo fpre pubescent c hi l dren i n bondage w i th the i r geni tal s e xposed, and tw o of an ani m al engag i ng i n a s ex a c t w i th a young gi rl

. I n additi on t o the i m age s, the hard dri ves al so con ta in ed 40 vi deos of ch i l d po r no g r aph y . One v i deo fea tu red two sc r ea m i ng c h i l d r e n b e i n g r a p e d b y a n a d u l t ; a n o th e r d e pi c t e d a naked thr ee- yea r- ol d gi rlbeing f or ced t o perf or m a sex act on a n adultm al e. Sm ith w as ind icted and his tr ialsch ed uled f or J an ua ry 17, 200 6. A fte r se ve ra l co n tin u an c es , Sm ith m ov ed on Ju lyN o. 08

- 1477 3 20, 20 06, f orfund s under the C ri m i nal J usti ce Act ( “CJA”) to re tai n a psychol ogi cal expert
. The cour t gr an te d h is r eque sto n Au gu st 1, 2 00 6. F o l l o wi ngs ev er almor e co nti nuances, S m i th pl eaded gui l ty on M ar ch 2, 2007, to th e t h ird co u n t o f th e in d ict m en t, d ist rib u tin g c h ild p ornogra p hy i n violation of 18 U
. S. C
. § 2252(a)(2)
. Sm ith’s sent en cing p roceed ed i n four p arts over a fourm onth span. A t the fi rs t hear i ng, hel d Octo ber4, 2007, Sm ith p re se n t e d th e e x p er t t es tim on y of R ob er t H u n d t, a l i ce ns ed cl i ni ca l s o ci alwor k era nd c er ti fi ed addi ct i o ns counsel or . Rel yin g up on a “psyc hose xual ass ess m ent” of Sm i th he had previ ousl y c om ple ted, H und t o pined that Sm i th was tr eat abl e a nd therefor e s houl d onl y b e incarc erated f or a short tim e. H un d t ad m itted , how e ver, that l i ttl e r ese ar ch

— an d no c r edibl e te st i ng

— w as av aila b le to ai d i n de term i ni ng wh etherso m eone l i ke Sm i th pose d a ris k o fco m m itt in g fu tu re offe n se s in vo lvin g c h ild p ornogra p hy

. H e also sta ted th at he h ad “ abs olutely n o[ ] ” id ea w hat the appropr i ate am ount o fpunishm ent was f o r S m i th

. The dist ri ct courth el d a s eco nd hear i ng o n N ove m ber15 , 2007
. A t that hea ri ng, th e d i str i ct c ourtdeter m i ned S m i th’s gui del i ne s o ff en se l ev elwas 3 8, y i el di nga s en te nc i ngr an g e o f 235 t o 2 93 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t. The co ur t then invi te d S m i th ’ s at to r ne y t o “ addr es s an d com m ent” on a ny o fthe 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) f acto rs . W hen a di sc us si o n o fthe di st r i ctj udg e’ s r o l e i n s en te nc i ng vi s- à- vi s th e g ui del i ne s ar o se s ho r tl y the r eaf te r, the d istri ct co u r t h ad the foll ow ing exc ha ng e w ith Sm ith’s cou ns el, M r. Foster:4 N o. 08

- 1477 TH E CO U RT: I say th e C ou rt can go hi gher or Ican

go l ow er than the gu idelines. Th at’s not the par ty[
. ] Ican go h i ghero r l ower f orse ver alr eas ons, f orno othe r reason thatIdisagree that they ’re f ai r, o r tha t th er e ar e r ea sons why Isho uld be hi ghero r l ower. But, aga i n, that ’ s no t a departur e. M R. FOSTER: Right. T H E C O U R T : T h e w o r d “ d e p a r t ” i n s i n u a t e s t o me

th at th e g u id elin es are iron c lad . I do n’ tc o ns i de r the m t o b e i r o nc l a d. Shor t l y a ft e r tha te xc ha ng e , F o s t e r a pp e a r e d t o a dv o cate th at th e d ist ric t cou rt h ad th e au th or ity t o c om p let ely di sr eg ar d the g ui del i ne s. The di st r i ctj udg e j um ped i n: THE COUR T: Technica l l y, Mr
. F o s t e r, Ido n’t know

th at I ag re e w ith you o n th at . Ith in k a ll that tell s m e i s that i t’ s up to m e t o deci de w hat’ s a f ai r sente nce. M R. FOS TER: Up to y ou to d eci de what ’ s a f ai r s en te nc e wi tht o ta l di sr eg ar d f o r the gui del i nes. . . . A nd I bel i eve thatwith Rit a a nd M i ra nd a a fter that, thata dist ri ct c ourtj ud ge at thi s s tag e ca n si m pl y e nt era s en tence wi thno c o ncern

— TH E CO U RT: Idon’ t thi nk Ihave to i gnor e the gui deli ne s, M r. Foster.N o. 08

- 1477 5 M R. FOSTER: You don’thave to
. T H E C O U R T : I c a n c o n s u l tth e m . Ic a n l o o ka t t h e m.

Ic ande te r m i ne whethe r th eye nl i ghten m e a s t o w hat a fai r sente nce is. O r if I w an t t o ign or e t h e m , Ist ill have to

— the b ott om l i ne, Ihave to m ake a det er m i na ti o n wha t a f ai r s en tence would be. M R. FOSTER: Right. TH E C OU RT: The gui del i nes a re advi sor y. The dis cussi on then tur ned to H und t’ s qual i fi cati ons. The dis tr i ct j ud ge sta ted thathe “ had som e di ffi cul ty accepti ng” Hu nd t as a n expertbec ause H und t was nei thera p sychi atr i st norpsycho l ogi st, and the defe nse had not s how n that he w as “qual i fi ed to m ake the diagnosis and the p rognos is that h e w as m aking.” Th e cou rt th en g av e F o st era n o ppo r tu ni tyt o fl es h o utHundt’ s qua l i fi ca ti o ns a nd t o o ka t en - m i nut e r ec ess. Af te r the br ea k, F oster st at ed th athe want ed to a ddr es s why the co ur t sh o ul d a cceptHundt as a no n- sc i en ti fi c ex per t. The c o ur tr e s po nd e d: You can add re ss i t. Bu t l i ke I sai d, I w i l l go thro ugh i t, buti fy o u a r e g o i ngt o a ddr es s why y o u thi nk M r. H und t i s an e x p ert, Iwant to know w hy he’ s a n ex per t, whathe s ai d, and ho w he dr ew the c o nc l us i o n b e c a us e the r e a r e a l o to fc o mm e nt s tha th e ma de f ro m a s e l f

- a ns we r e d que s t i o nn a i r e b y the de f e nd a nt
. A nd fro m thati t ap p ear ed, atl eas t

— an d I ’ m g o i ng backfro m r eco l l ecti on r i ght no w , thato ne di agnosed6 N o. 08

- 1477 the pr obl em wh i ch he m ay be abl e t o do, psycho l ogi sts d o t h a t t o som e d egree, and then talks abou t his cu re and ever ythi ng el se. Idi dn ’ t hea r any e xperti se on that, wh ethero r not p rison i s g oi ng to be goo d fo r hi m o r bad f orhi m , and w hethero r not he can be cur ed i n pr i so n. H avi ng spel l ed out h is c oncer ns abo ut H und t’ s qual i fi cati ons, the dist ri ct j ud ge then l aunched int o thi s a si de: N ow, m y e xperi ence f ro m d ea li ng with peopl e that I have sent to i nsti tuti ons i s that the i nsti tu tio n s h ave ex per ts i n a ll th ese fi el ds, a nd the y de te r m i ne w hetherpeopl e a re tr eat abl e, how l ong they’ re tr eat
abl e, and i fthey ’ re cure d, then they c an

— they can release som ebod y Ihad gi ven li fe to at an y tim e. Ican ’t m ak e th em ho l d o nt o a pe r so n. Onc e he hi ts the Bur ea u o fPr i so ns , i t’ s up t o the Bu re au o fPr i so ns h ow lon g t h e y ’ r e g oin g t o ke ep th em u p to th e m ax im um thatIgi ve. Sm i th’ s a tto rneyqui ckl y a tte m pted to cor re ct the di str i ct j ud ge, expl ai ni ng tha t si nce the abo l i ti on o fparo l e bo ar ds, a per son m ay not be relea sed ea rl y fro m a f edera l pri son shor t o fhavi ng se rv ed 85% o fhi s s ente n c e. The dis tr i ct j u d ge , refe re n c in g a p re -gu id elin es ca se as th e ba sis of h is und er sta nd i ng, reite ra ted thathe thought “ the Bure au of Pri sons ha[ s] a l ot ofsa y, ” but note d “that’ s nei ther h er e n or th er e.” The po ss ibi l i tyo fS m i thb eingr el ea se d e ar l i ertha n the 85 % thr es ho ld w as di sc us se d o ne mor e ti m e ne arthe end ofthe N ove m ber16 hear i ng:N o. 08

- 1477 7 MR. F O S T E R : Ar e we

— a n d y o u s a i d m ay b e th ey ’ll

l et hi m l oo se ear l y. J ud ge, Idon’ t be

liev e t h ey w ill. THE COUR T: Is a i d the y c o ul d. M R. F OS TE R: Th e y c o ul d. T he y c o ul d. THE COU RT: I don ’ t ha ve an y ba si s to say th ey’re

going to l et hi m o ut ea rl y. F o r the r emai nde r o fthe s en te nc i ng p roce eding s, the subj ect ofwh etherS m i th m i ght b e r el eas ed ear l i erthan up o n s e r v i ng8 5 % o fh i s s e nt e nc e wa s n e v e r b r o a c he d. U nabl e t o convince the co urt of H u nd t’ s qual i fi cati ons, Fos term ove d fo r a con ti nuance to fi nd ano therexper t. The c o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o n: THE COUR T: M r. F os te r, r espect full y, I ’ ve gi ven

num er ous c onti nuance s o n thi s ca se. Iga ve you ti m e t o go ou t an d get an expert
. Iev en autho ri zed fu nd i ng f or the e xpert. M R. FOSTER: Corr ect. T HE C O UR T : Eve r y t i m e I c o me u p a nd t el l y o u,

w el l, thatexper t i s no t b elievabl e o r do es not m eetthe necess ar y qual i fi catio n s b as ed u p on w h at h e s a id , his back gr ound d i dn ’ t i m press m e insof ar as his te s tim ony i s con cern ed , I ’m no t g o i ng to k ee p g i ving y o u co nt i nuances unti l, yo u know, you fi nd so m ebody e i therIget ti re d ofsa yi ng I ’ m not8 N o. 08

- 1477 i mpr e s s e d b y hi m o r th a t, y o u kn o w, y o u’ r e sa ti sfi ed wi th

. Tha t’ s no t th e w ay it wo r k s, M r . F o st er . Ig av e y o u a chance t o go ther e a nd ge t s om ebo dy. Befo r e th e se co nd s en te nc i ngheari ngc o nc l ude d, the cour t a nd Fo ste r had yet anothe r disc ussi on a bout 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) and i ts re l ati onshi p w i th the gui del i nes. T h e co urt obs er ved that, befor e B o o k er, “ [ i ] t wa s a l ot str i cter
. ” The co urt al so poi nted out “thatthe gui del i nes [ ar e] o nl y a dvis or y, and Ican tak e a l oo k a t them as to w hat a fai r sente nce w i l l be. ” To thos e obser vati ons, Fo ste r re pli ed: “Igues s what I ’ m sa yi ng i s I c ou l dn ’ t hav e sto od her e pr e- Booke r and w i th i ntegr i ty ask y ou t o i gnor e these gui del i nes, wh i ch i s what I ’ m as ki ng y ou t o do .

. . . ” The cou rt r esp onded: “You co uld’ ve done i t. Yo u ma y n ot ha ve g o tt ena s f ara s y o u do t o day

. I t m i g ht b e a p olit e w ay of sa yin g w e a gr ee .” The c o ur th e l d a thi r d s e nt e nc i ngh e a r i ngthe n e xtday and ga ve the g ove rnm ent a n opportunity t o re spond to th e s en te n c in g iss u es rais ed b y th e d efe n se . T h e c ou rtd id no t co nv en e ag ai n unt i l ne ar l y thr ee months l at erwhen, o n F eb r ua r y 1 1, 2 00 8, i t pron ounc ed i ts s en te nc e. The cour t o ra l l y s tat ed, i n detai l, i ts re aso ns f orse l ecting i ts sen ten ce. I t con sid ered , am ong other th ings, the na tu re and c irc um sta nces ofthe cri m e i tse l f, i ncl ud i ng the durati o n o f S m i th ’ s o per at i o n o fthe c hi l d po r no g r aph y - sh ar i ng ser ver, the pla nning that w ent into cre ati ng the se rv er an d o r g an i zingthe i m ag es , a nd the unu su al l y ap p all i ng na tu r e o fs o m e o fthe i m ag es a nd v i deo s depi ct i ng vi o l en t se xua l a ct s per pet r at ed o n v er y y o ungc hi l dr en .N o. 08

- 1477 9 The cour t a l so consi dered the resul ti ng co nsequences of th e cr i m e as wel l a s th e f ac t th atS m i thc o m m itted the cri m e withi n a w ee k ofbeing fre ed on bo nd fro m st ate custo dy. A fterdi sco unti ng H und t’ s t est i m ony because ofhi s l ack ofqual i fi cati ons, the cour t f ound th at a 24 0- mo n th s e n t e n c e wa s “ f a i r a n d r e a s o n a b l e g i ve n t he n a t u re an d circ u m st an c es of th e c rim e” an d w ou ld “h av e a deterre nte ff ec t f o r o th er s cr ea ting, do wnl o adi ng [ , ] a nd t r adi ngc hi l d pornog r aph i c i m ag es . ” The co ur t no te d tha t “the gu i del i ne r an g e co i nc i des wi ththe sen ten ce an d f in d in gs th is Cou rt has m ad e and de term in ed to be fair a n d rea so n ab le.” Sm ith ap p ea ls h is sente nce.

II. On a ppea l, S m i thpr es en ts f o urc ha l l en g es to hi s se ntence
. Fi rs t, he a rgues that the di strict cour t s houl d have gr anted hi m a continuance t o obt ai n another expertafter th e c ou rt discred ited H un d t. Sm ith d oes not, how ever, chal l enge the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r ej ecti on o fH und t’ s qual i fi cati o ns

— onl y the deni alo fthe continuance to fi nd a new expert
. W hetherto gr ant o r d en y a co nti nuance i s a m att er of c as e m an ag em en t. U nited Sta te s v. Ta nn er, 54 4 F
. 3d 793, 79 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. M an ag emen t d ec i si o ns “ ar e f o r the d ist ri ct j ud ge; we i nter vene onl y when i t i s a pp ar ent that the j ud ge h as acte d unreaso nabl y. ” G riffin v . Foley , 54 2 F. 3d 209, 217 (7th Cir
. 20 08) ( quoti ng N
. Ind. Pub. Se r v. Co. v. Car b on County Coal Co. , 7 99 F.2d 265, 26 9 (7th C ir. 1986)). A ccord ingly, this cou rt “w il l ov e r t u rn a trialcou rt’s10 N o. 08

- 1477

The pr es i di ng m agi s t ra t e j udge gr anted S m i th’ s m ot i on 1 se eking CJA fund s to r etai n an experton A ugu st1, 2006

— m ore thana ye ar be f or e s en t en c i ng be gan . dispos i ti on o fa m oti on t o continue o n ly foran abuse o f disc re ti on a nd a showing ofactual prej ud i ce. ” U n i ted State s v. Tingle, 1 83 F
. 3d 71 9, 7 23 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 9) ( quo ting U ni t e d St at e s v. Bla ndi na , 8 95 F.2d 29 3, 297 (7th Cir. 1989)); see also M o rr i s v. Sl appy, 46 1 U.S
. 1, 11 –12 ( 1983 ) ( “[ B]r oad disc re ti on m ust be gr anted tr i alco urts o n m att er s o f con tinu an ces; onl y an unr ea so ni ng and arbitrary in sis te n c e u p on ex p ed itio u sn es s in th e fac e of a jus tifia b le re quest fordel ay vi ol ate s the r i ght t o the a ssi sta nce o f cou ns el. ” (i nt erna l qu otations om itted ))
. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n ota b u se its d isc re tio n in r efus i ngt o gi ve Smi thano th erbi te a t th e ex per t appl e. The cour t had alre ady aff or ded S m i th a f ai r opportunity t o prese nt exper t t est i m ony. I t had au th or ized CJA fund s t o r e t a i n a n e x p e r ta n d h a d g i v e n h i m p l e n ty o ft i me

— o v er a y ear

— to fin d a q u alifie d ex p er t. Cf. U ni t e d S t at e s v.

1 J
. H. H. , 22 F. 3d 821, 83 1 ( 8th Ci r. 19 94) ( fi nd i ng no abuse ofdi scr eti on wh er e di str i ct c ourtga ve defe nd ant a m onth be tw een t ri aland sent enci ng to o btain a psy chologi cal evaluat ion). H aving given Sm ith a fair op p ortu ni tyt o r et ain a s ui tabl e ex per t, the c o ur t was unde r no obl i gat i on t o l et hi m have a no ther ch an ce to p resen t exp ert te st i m o ny

— e s pe c i a l l y wh e n pu b l i c mo ne y h a d a l r e a dy been expend ed. “I fatfi rs t y ou don’ t s ucc eed , tr y, tr y, aga i n” m i ght m ake a m em or abl e m axi m , but i t i s i l l

- sui ted as a princi ple f orcas e m anage m ent.N o. 08

- 1477 11 A dd i ti onal l y, S m i th ga ve the dis tr i ct c ourtno re aso n to bel i eve thathe c oul d eversucce ed i n fi nd i ng a sat i sf acto ry ex p er t. S e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v . R i n a l di, 4 61 F. 3d 922, 92 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( obs er vi ng that, w hen cons i deri ng wh ether p rej u d ice aris es from t h e d en ial of a co n tin u an c e, a c o u r tc a n l o o kt o “ th e l i k e l i h o o d th a ta d d i t i o n a l t i me w ou ld h ave yielded i nform ation u seful at sen t e n cing” ). Sm i th’ s a ttorn ey tol d the co urt that he had shopped ar o und a nd tha t H undtwas the o nl y pe r soni n Nor th

w estI nd i ana who perf or m ed psychos exual as ses sm ents. M or eov er, H und t hi m sel f adm i tte d o n the rec or d that not m uch re sea rch exi ste d on the questi on o f w hether som eon e li ke Sm ith w as a p oten tial risk to com m it fut ure offen ses i nvol vi ng chi l d pornog ra phy. H e a l so expla i ned to the di stric t co urt that expert s had ye t t o devi se tes ti ng tha t would pro vi de i nsi ght into th e q u est i on o f future ri sk. Giv en H und t’ s t esti m ony about the dear th o f tes ti ng and stud i es on pre c i sel y the i ssue on wh i ch Sm i th so ught the ai d ofexper t t est i m ony, the dist ri ct c o ur twa s we l l wi thin the b o un ds o fr e a s o n t o c oncl ud e that Sm i th had l i ttl e chan c e o ffi nd i ng a cre dibl e e xpert. S m i thha s su bmi tt ed no th i ngt o c alli nt o que st i o n the re aso nablenes s o fthatco ncl usi on; he there f or e has not sh o wn th athe w as prej udi ce d by the deni alo fthe c o nt i nuance. N ext, S m i th ar gues that the di str i ct cou rter re d by t r e a t i ngthe g ui de l i ne s a s p r e s umpt i v e l y a pp l i c a bl e. W hetherthe dis tr i ct courtfol l owed the properpro cedures after U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 54 3 U. S
. 22 0 ( 20 05 ) , i n i m po sing se n te n c e is a q u es tio n of law w e r e v i e w d e n ov o. U nited St at e s v. M e ndoz a , 5 10 F
. 3d 74 9, 7 54 ( 7th C i r . 2 00 7)
. The Sup rem e Cou r t se t f o r ththe pr o perpr o ce ss f o r de te r-12 N o. 08

- 1477

m i ni nga s en te nc e i n R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 12 7 S
. Ct. 24 56 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , a nd K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 128 S. Ct
. 558 (2007). F i r st, the di st r i ctjud ge wi l l no r m al l y b eg i n b y c o nsi deri ng the pre sente nce r epor t a nd i ts i nter preta ti on o f the guidel i nes. R ita , 1 2 7S
. C t
. a t2 4 6 5
. T h e S u p r e me Cou r t ha s st r es se d tha t “di st r i ctc o ur ts mustt r ea t th e Gui del i ne s as the ‘ st ar tingpo int an d the i ni ti alb en ch

m ar k. ’ ” Kim b r ough , 128 S. Ct. at574 ( quoti ng G a ll v . U nited Sta tes , 12 8 S
. Ct. 58 6 ( 2007 ) )
. A fterco n sid er i ng the gui deli ne s, the di st r i ctc o ur t wi l l the n s ubj ec t th e defen dant’s se nt en ce “ to the tho r o ug h a dvers ar i alt es tingc o ntem pla ted by the federa l se ntenci ng pro cedure. ” R it a , 12 7 S. Ct. a t 24 65. The di str i ct c ourtacc om pli shes that tas k by hear i ng ar gum en ts f ro m the pros ecuti on a nd defense th at a gu id elin es se n te n c e s h ou l d n otap p ly

—be ca us e th e case f al l s o utsi de the hear tla nd o fthe gui del i nes, o r bec a us e a g ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e f a i l s t o r e fl e c tthe § 3 553( a) f ac to r s, “ o r pe r ha ps be ca us e th e ca se war r an ts a di ff er en t sente nce r ega rdl ess.” Id

. The S up re m e Cour t s tat ed that, “[ i ] n de te r m i ni ngthe mer i ts o fthe se a r g um en ts, th e se nt en ci ngc o ur t do es no t enj o y the b en efi t of a leg al pr es u m p tio n th at th e G u id elin es se n te n c e sh ou ld apply. ” Id

. T o sup p ort his argum en t th at th e d istri ct court, contrary to the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s pro scr i pti on, appli ed a l ega l presum pti on i n f avo r ofthe gui del i nes, S m i th ci tes an exchange between hi s co unsel a n d the di str i ct j ud ge du ri ng the fi rs t s entenci ng hea ri ng: MR
. F O S T E R : Ri g ht

. Butth a t ’ s whe r e I ’ m h e a de d.

Ikno w thatyo u have

— yeah , there’sN o. 08

- 1477 13 certain pa ram eters on that, and you’re g o i ngt o ha ve a c ho i ce b etwee n the m andator y m i ni m um and w hatev er the s tatutor y l i m i t i s her e. THE COUR T: N o. I have t o g o b a ck to the gui del i nes. You bett er tel l m e w hy the gui deli ne s are i m p rop er. Tha t ex ch an g e o cc urr ed whi l e th e co ur t was a tt empti ng to und er sta nd the re l evance o fH und t’s testi m ony to Sm i th’ s s entenci ng. A t fi rs t bl ush, the c ou rt ’ s s tat em ents mayg i v e the im pre s s i o n tha tthe di s t r i c tj ud g e mi s a pprehended his r ole post
- B o o k er and place d u n d u e e mphasi s o n the gui del i nes. A n exam i nati on o fthe sente nci ng pro ceedi ngs in the ir enti re ty, however, di spel s a ny doubt th at t he di str i ct co ur t i nc o r r ec tl y unde r st o o d, o r i m pr o per l y a ppl i ed, the p r o ce dur alfr amewor ko ut l i ne d i n R it a . T he di s t r i ct j udg e’ s st atem en ts dur i ngthe s ec o nd s en te nc i nghe ar i ng show that he und er st ood the pro per ro l e the gui del i nes pl ayi n s en te nc i ng . Dur i ng th e pr es en ta ti o n o fmit i g at i ng f acto rs by S m i th’ s co unsel, the dist ri ct j ud ge sta ted that he c o ul d g o hi g he r o r l o wer tha n th e gui del i ne s “fo r no oth er rea son th an I d isagree t ha t the y’re f air, or th at th ere ar e r eas ons w hy I s h ou ld be hi ghero r l ower. ” He al so st at ed th at he d i d no t co ns i derthe g ui del i ne s to b e “i r o ncl ad. ” An d w hen Sm i th’ s counselap peare d to be insi nuating tha t the district c ou rt cou ld com p letely d isregard the g ui de l i ne s , the di s t r i c t j ud g e c l a r i fi e d tha t he di d not

“ h a v e t o i g n o r e th e g u i d e l i n e s , ” wh i l e a t th e s a me ti m e r eco gni zi ng tha t “it ’ s up to m e t o deci de w hat’ s a f ai r sente nce. ” Cf

. Ki m b r ough , 12 8 S
. Ct. at574.14 N o. 08

- 1477 The di st r i ctc o ur t’ s ac ti o ns s uppo rt its s ta te m en ts
. The c ou rtfi rs t ca l cul ate d the g uidel i nes r ange. I t then ga ve counself orb oth si des an o pp or tuni ty to add re ss any o f th e § 35 53 ( a) f ac to r s th eyb el ieved w er e r el ev an t to s en tenci ng, as wellas any obj ecti ons they had to th e gui del i nes r ange. W hen i t pr onounced i ts sente nce, the dist ri ct co ur t g av e a whol e ho sto fr ea so ns c o ns i st en t w i ththe § 3 55 3(a ) fac to rs . S e e, e . g. , 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a)(1) ( na tu re an d c i r cumst an ce s o f th e o ff en se a nd the hi st o r y a nd c h ar ac te ris tic s of th e d efe n d an t); id

. ( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( ser i ousness of t h e o ffen se an d j u st p u n ish m en t fo r th e o ffen se ); id

. ( a) ( 2) ( B) ( ade qua te de te r r en ce )
. I t th enno te d tha t “the gui del i ne r ange coi nci des with the se ntence and find i ngs thi s Courthas m ade and deter m i ned to be f ai r and rea

sonab l e. ” F arfro m ev i nci ng a presum pti on that the gui del i ne s appl i ed, the di stric t co ur t’ s st at ement s an d a ct i o ns show thatthe cour t a rr i ved ata sente nce i t be l i eve d w as f ai r i nde pen den tl y o fthe g ui del i ne s, tho ug h wi th due c o ns i de r a t i o n f o r wh a tthe g ui de l i ne s p r e s c r ib e d. Sm i th al so ar gues that the di str i ct c ourtf ai l ed to adequatel y a dd re ss the § 35 53( a) f acto rs . S peci fi cal l y, S m i th ta ke s is su e w ith th e d is t r i c t co u rt ’s fa ilu re to d isc u ss all ofthe m i ti gat i ng c i rcum sta nces surr ounding the o ff ense. H e co nt en ds th at, a s a co nseq ue nc e o ftha t f ai l ur e, the sente nce the di str i ct c ourti m posed was not re aso nabl e. A di st r i ctj udg e m us t al l o w a de f en dan t to po i nto ut any o fthe § 3 553( a) f acto rs that m i ght j usti fy a se ntence outsi de ofthe gui del i nes r ange, and m us t c onsidertho se fac to rs w h en d et er m in in g t h e s en te n c e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. T yra , 45 4 F
. 3d 686, 687 (7 th C i r. 20 06)
. But the j ud ge needN o. 08

- 1477 15 not “w ri te a co m prehensi ve ess ay ap p l yi ng the fullpanop ly of p en olo gic al t h eo rie s a n d co n sid er at ion s, w h ic h is to sayever ythi ng invo ked or evo ked byse cti on 3 553( a)

— to the c ase befor e hi m . ” U ni t e d S t at e s v . D e an , 41 4 F
. 3d 725, 72 9 (7th C ir. 20 05 ). In st ea d , th e d ist ric t j u d ge n e e d o n ly gi ve an “a d eq u ate st ate m ent o fthe j ud ge’ s r eas ons, co ns i st en t wi ths ec ti o n 3 55 3( a) , f o r thi nk i ng the s en te nc e th athe ha s se l ec te d i s i nde ed appr o priate f o r the parti cul ardefendant. ” Id .; s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Ge orge, 403 F .3d 47 0, 47 2–73 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( “J ud ges need not re hear se on the r eco rd al l o fthe consi de ra tio ns that18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a) l ists .
. . . ”). The di s t r i c tj ud g e di d s o h e r e . As me nt i o ne d a bove , hi s st at ed r ea so ns f o r the sent en ce c o nf o r m ed wi ththe consi derat i ons l i ste d in § 3553 ( a)
. The dist ri ct j ud ge als o e x p licit ly st at ed th at h e h ad ta k e n int o a c c ou n t a ll the a rgum ents and sub m issi ons ofS m i th’ s co unsel wh en fashion ing a se nt en ce. Th us , betw een the d istri ct cou rt’s r ea so ne d c o ns i der at i o n of th e § 35 53 ( a) f ac to r s, i ts a tt en ti on t o the a rgum ents and concer ns pre sente d by Sm i th’ s co uns el, and the pr esum pti on o fr eas onabl eness w e a pp l y o n app ea l, see U nited Sta tes v. W hit ed, 53 9 F
. 3d 6 9 3 , 6 9 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) , we se e no b a s i s u nd e r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 553( a) to di sturb S m i th’ s s entence
. Lastl y, S m i th as ser ts that re ver sali s wa rr anted bas ed on the di str i ct c ourt ’ s stat em ents du ri ng the N ove m ber15 sente nci ng hea ri ng ab out the pos sibi l i ty ofan e ar ly re lea se . Re c all th at d u rin g a d isc u ss ion o f H u n d t’s qu alification s a t th e se co nd s en te nc i nghe ar i ng, the c o ur t m en ti oned i ts “u nd er sta nd i ng” was thatthe Bu re au of16 N o. 08

- 1477

S ee Sente ncing Ref orm Act of1984, Pub

. L
. N o. 98- 473, Tit le II, 2 98 St at. 1987. Pri sons ( “BO P”) had unfe tt er ed dis cre ti on t o re l eas e p ris oners ear l y i fBOP exper ts deter m i ned that a pri sone r was c ur ed. Tha t un d er st an di ngi s i nc o r r ec t. S i nc e th e abol i ti on o fparo l e, the ear lies t the BOP m ay re l eas e a 2 p ris on er is u p on s er vin g 85 % o f h is s en te n c e. See 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3624 (a)–( b). A c c o rd ing to Sm ith, th e d istri ct cou rt’s m i st ak enc o m m en ts a t th e se co nd s en te nc i nghe ar i ng aff ecte d his se ntence. S m i th, ho wev er, b ea r s th e bur deno fs ho wi ngtha t th e dist ri ct c ourt relied o n the possibi l i ty ofS m i th’ s r el eas e pri orto the 85% thr esho l d w hen se ntenci ng him

. S ee Un i t e d S t at e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 5 03 U. S
. 1 93 , 2 03 ( 19 92 ) ( “[ T] he par tyc ha l l en g i ngthe s en te nc e o n a ppea l

. . . b ea r s th e i ni ti alburden o fsho w i ng tha t the d i str i ct c ourt relied u p on an inv alid fac to r at se n te n c in g . . . .” (em p h as is ad d ed ))
. Sm ith can not m e e t tha t bu rd en . Th e record p ro vid es no s up portf orhi s cl ai m thatthe possibi l i ty of r el ea se pr i o r t o s er ving8 5% o fhi s se nt en ce pl ay ed an y ro l e in the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s dete rm i nati on o fhi s s entence
. T h e c o n t e x ti n w h i c h th e d i s t r i c tj u d g e m a de th e c o mm en ts abou t early r elease is crucial. T h e d istri ct cou rt d id n ot m ake th em du ring the Feb ru a ry 11, 2008 heari ng

— th e fo urth a nd fi nal hear i ng atwh i ch the dist ri ct co ur t pr o no unc ed se nt en ce a nd g ave i ts r ea so ni ngf o r the se nt en ce i t ch o se . Ra th er, the di st r i ctj udg e’ s as i de ab o ut ear l y r el ea se occur re d at the se cond sente nci ng hea ri ng, h e l d o n No v e mb e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 7, th r e e mo n th s an d t woN o. 08

- 1477 17

O u r d i ss e n t i n g c o l l e a g u e a s se r t s t h a tth e d i st r i c tju d g e ’s 3 “m istak en b elief” ab ou t e a r l y r elease p lay ed a ro le in his dec i s i on t o gi ve H undt ’ s t es t i m ony l i t t l e wei ght bec aus e the j udge as s um ed thatthe BOP w oul d do i t s own a s s essm en tof Sm ith’s futu re d an g ero u sness. D issent at 26 -27. It b ear s rep eati n g tha t Sm ith h as notcha lleng ed on ap p eal th e d istrict co u r t ’s find ing tha t H u nd t’ s testim on y w a s en titled to little w eig ht. N eve rthe l es s , the di s s en t ’ s a sse rt i on aboutthe i m pac tofthe cou rt’ s m i s t ake n be l i effi nds no s uppor ti n the r ec or d. Duri ng the Fe brua ry 20 08 he ar i ng

— whic h, ag ai n, was the he ar i ng wher e the di s t ri c tj udge ex pl i c i t l y ga ve hi s r ea s oni ng f or S m i th’ s s e ntence

— the dist ri ctcourt se t forth on the re cord s eve ra l r ea s ons f or gi vi ng H undt ’ s t es t i m ony l i t t l e wei ght

. The c our t c om m en t ed on H undt ’ s l ac k of qua l i fi c at i ons to o pi ne on Sm ith’ s futur e d angerousness . The court al so not ed H u nd t’ s com p lete relian ce on Sm ith’s self- serv ing statem en ts f ro m a s el f

- ans were d que s t i onn ai re t o s upport h i s c onc l usi ons. Ad d iti o nall y, the court em phasized the l ack ofevidence a n d te st i n g fr o m e x p e r t s i n th e sa m e fi e l d s u p p o r t i n g H u n d t ’s the or i es . None ofthe r ea s ons gi venby th e d is t ri c tc our tf or r eje c t i n g H u n d t ’s t e st i m o n y w a s b a se d o n a b e l i e f t h a tH u n d t ’s testim on y w as u nn ecessar y b eca u se B O P ex p erts w ou ld p erform a sim ilar an aly sis. hear i ngs pr i orto the pron ouncem ent o fse ntence. M or eov er, atthe ti m e the di str i ct j ud ge m ade tho se com m ents, he was not add re ssi ng S m i th’ s s entence
. Rather, he ha d been exp lai nin g his con cern s abou t the basis of H un d t’s expertte sti m ony. 3 Furtherm or e, w hi l e the f act that Sm i th could be re l eas ed upon ser vi ng 85 % o fhi s s entenc e ( the c or re ct und er sta nd i ng o fea rl y re l eas e under curr ent l aw ) was18 N o. 08

- 1477

m enti oned se ver alti m es d u ri ng the se ntenci ng hea ri ngs he ld th er ea fte r, no th i ngwas s ai d a t th e l at ers en te nc i ng hear i ngs about t he poss ibi l i ty ofan e ar l i err el eas e f or S mi th i fthe BO P de t e r mi ne d tha the wa s c ur e d. I nd e e d, th e o nl y o th ert i m e th e i ss ue o fe ar l y r el ea se w as b r o ug ht up was l ate r i n that sam e Novem b er 15, 20 07, hear i ng. Sm i th’ s l aw yer, n ot the c ourt, i ni ti ate d the di scussi on o f ear l y re l eas e that seco nd ti m e. A nd the dist ri ct c ourtsho rt
ci rcui ted the exchange , acknow l edgi ng tha t i t di d not “h av e a n y b as is t o s ay th ey ’re goin g t o let h im ou t e ar ly.” M osti m port antl y, the dist ri ct j ud ge

— i m m edi ate l y a fter the e rr oneo us as i de abo ut ea rl y r el ease

— express l y di sco un ted th e r el ev an cyo fthe e nt i r e di sc us si o n t o s en tenci ng, st ati ng tha t it was “nei therher e no r ther e. ” That the di str i ct j ud ge thought the di scussi on i rr el evantto sente nci ng w as und er sco re d a t the fi nal hear i ng three m onths l ate r. A t that hea ri ng, the j ud ge pronounced se nt en ce a nd g av e a det ai l ed st at ement of reas o ns o n the re c o r d fo r th e s en te n c e h e s ele c te d

. N o w here di d he m ake any m enti on o fthe possibi l i ty ofea rl y r el eas e f or S m i th, much l es s a st at ements ee m i ngt o i ndi ca te tha t he re l i ed on that pos sibi l i ty w hen se l ecting hi s s entence
. Sm i th arg u es , however, thatthe cour t’ s co m m ents at th e fina l sen ten cing h ea r in g a bou t its hop es for Sm ith’s psychol ogi caltr eat m ent a nd cure i nd i cate i ts re li ance o n a mis un de r s t a nd i ngo fe a r l y r e l e a s e . T ho s e c o mm e nt s do l i ttl e m or e than expres s the di str i ct c ourt ’ s desi re thatN o. 08

- 1477 19

Sm ith ci tes the f oll ow in g s tat em ent, m ade af terthe dist ri ct 4 cou rt ha d listed its reaso ns f or the sen ten ce an d stated tha t it f ound a s ente nce of 2 4 0 m onths “f air and reasonable”: “H opefull y thi s se n tence will al low the def endan t t o be tre ated i n an eff or t to cu re h is psy ch olo g ical an d m ed ical p ro b lem s in th is a r e a , i f p o ss ib l e .” S m i th a l so p o i n t s t o th e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s statem en t t o w a r d s the en d of the h ear ing in resp on se to Sm ith’s req u est tha t he b e p laced at a B O P institutio n c l o se to Chi c ago : M r. Fos ter, you had c ont ac t ed the Cour tby way o fyour m ot i on re gar di ng the pl ac em en tofthe d efen dant

. I do n ot m ake a habi tofput t i ng a defen dantata s pec i fi c i ns t i t ut i on. I t ’ s no tl i ke pi c king a hot el

. I n thi s c as e, I ha ve c onc er ns thatI woul d l i ke t o s ee the defen dantr ec ei ve s om e trea tm en t ps yc hol ogi c al l y, and I thi nk the Bure au of Pr i s ons is pr ob a bl y go i ng t o do tha ta ny way . W ha tI a m wi l l i ng t o do i s t o r ec om m en d an i ns t i t ut i on as c l os e t o Chi c ago l and as poss ib le gi venthatthe y ge thi m t o a n i ns t i t ut i on f or p syc h o log ical trea tm en t .
. . an d then the seco nd ob ject is to gethim as cl ose to Chicagol and as poss ible

. S mi th g e tp s y c ho l o g i c a l tr e a t men twh i l e i nc a r c e r a t e d. 4 Y et S m i th would have us di vine fro m them an i m pli ed re f er ence to an as i de abo ut ea rl y r el eas e utt er ed at a hear i ng near l y three m onths pri or

— an asi de about w hi ch t h e ju d ge ex p ressly said at th e tim e w as “n either h ere norther e. ” W e s ee no nee d fo r su c h c lai rv oya nce wh en th e record i s as clear as i t i s here. Th e d istri ct cou rt off er ed m any r eas ons at th e Fe bruar y 2 008 hear i ng f or se nt en ci ngS m i tht o 2 40 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t. The p o s s ib i l i t y o fa n e a r l y r e l e a s e w a s n o ta mo n gth e m. The dis tr i ct j u d ge c l ear l y s tat ed hi s r eas ons at the l ast sente nci ng hea rin g w hen he pro nounced sente nce; no-20 N o. 08

- 1477

w here did he m enti on the possibi l i ty of ear l y re l eas e. Yet our diss enti ng co l l eag ue would hol d that the di str i ct j ud ge’ s s i de com m ents thre e m on th s a nd two hear i ngs p rior s om eh ow i m p acte d his de term ination of Sm ith’s sen tence
. Acco r di ngt o the di ss en t, the c o m m en ts abo ut th e po ss ibi l i tyo fe ar l y r el ea se i nfec te d the co ur t’ s dec i si o nm aki ng pro cess bec ause the dis tri ct c ourtneve r e xp r e s s l y r e pu di a t e d the m o n the r e c o r d. W e c o nc l ud e thi s was notnece ss ar y. W e a l so ass um e the di sse nt does no t m ea n t o i m pl y tha t al l the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s se nt enci ng d ecisions sin c e the pa ssage of th e Sent en cing R eform A ct o f19 84 w er e ina p p ropri ate
. W e fi nd i t e sse nti alto evalu ate the reason s actu ally given by th e d istri ct c o u rt du ri ng the Fe bruar y 2 008 heari ng f orS m i th’ s s entence
. A s no ne o ftho se re aso ns i m pli cate d e ar l y r el eas e, S m i th ’ s ar g um en t tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t r el i ed o n the poss ibility o fea rl y r el eas e in f ashi oni ng hi s s entence m u st fail. T he dissen t also w ou ld n ot cred it the d istri ct cou rt’s dism i ssi ve stat em ent about the di scussi on o fea rl y r el eas e be i ng“ ne i th erh ere no r the r e. ” Di ss en t at2 7. The di ss en t cor re ctl y obser ves that j ust b ecause a dist ri ct c ourtsa ys a d ec isio n is co rre c t a s a m at te r of law d oe s n otm ak e it so. The di str i ct j ud ge ’s m usi ngs duri ng hi s deto ur into ear l y r el eas e were not corr ect as a m att ero fl aw . But that i s no t th e i ss ue he r e. W e m us t det er m i ne whethe r the dist ri ct j ud ge r e l i e d on t h e m isun d erstan d ing in de term in in g Sm ith ’s s en te n c e. S e eWi l l i a ms , 50 3 U.S. at 203. W e co ncl ud e he did n ot. H e di scar ded hi s inaccurat e ob se rv at ion s a t t h e e n d o fh is d isc u ss ion on th e re liab ility of Sm ith ’s p ro p os ed ex p er t. T h e d igr es sio n int o e ar lyN o. 08

- 1477 21 release w as “n either h ere nor th ere.” Con se q u e n tly, there i s no need t o re m and thi s ca se f orr ese ntenci ng.

III
. The dis tr i ct c ourtact ed w el l w i thi n i ts disc re ti on wh en i t deni ed Sm i th ano ther continuance to al l ow him to tr y t o fi nd a mor e ac ce ptabl e ex per t after the c o ur t f o und H u n d t’s qu alific at ion s la c kin g. T h e c ou rtals o c or re c tly appl i ed 18 U. S
. C. § 35 53(a) whens en te nc i ngS m i th, a nd i ts s ta te m en t o fr ea so ns s uppo r tingthe 2 40- m o nth s en tence w as m or e than adequate under that sect i on. Final l y, th ere is no ev iden ce on the record that the d istri ct cou rt’s ta ng en tials ta te m en ts abo ute ar l y r el ea se dur i ngthe secon d sent en c in g h e aring p layed any role i n th e cou rt’s det er m i na ti o n o fS m i th ’ s se nt en ce a t th e f ou rth and fi nal se ntenci ng hea ri ng thr ee m onths l ate r. W e A FFIRM .

R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e, diss enti ng. There i s no doubt that Lar r y G. S m i thc o m m i tt ed a he i no us c rime whe n h e d ec id ed to co llec t a n d tra d e c h ild p or n og ra p h y. T h er e is no doubt that the i m age s co ntai ned on hi s co m pu ter wer e o f th e m o stho r r i fi c k i nd. The r e i s no do ubttha t he is a ve ry d ist u rb ed you n g m an . U n f o r t u n at ely , th er e is al so no doubt that the di str i ct j ud ge se riousl y m i sst ate d the l aw r ega rdi ng the ro l e of the Bu re au ofPri sons ( “BO P”)22 N o. 08

- 1477 i n de te r m i ni ngr el ea se da te s f o r fede r alpr i so ne r s. The m ajority seem s to agree tha t the district cou rt’s “un d ersta nd i ng” that the BOP had u n f ett er ed dis cre ti on t o re l eas e pr i sone rs ea rl y i fBOP exp er ts deter m i ned that th e p ri sone r w as cured i s “ i ncor re ct. ” Su pra a t 1 6
. The m aj or i ty finds that Sm i th has f ai l ed to dem onst ra te that the dist ri ct c ourtr el i ed on thi s m i sund er sta nd i ng o f the l aw i n deter m i ni ng hi s sente nce. I fi nd it i ncom prehe ns ib l e tha ts uc h a mi s un de r s t a nd i ngc o ul d not i nfl ue nc e a j udg e’ s se nt en ci ngde ci si o n. The or i gi nal exchange , wh i ch cam e a fterdefense counsel state d he w ou ld li ke to ad d ress th e d efe n s e ex p ert’s tes ti m ony, i s worth re peati ng i n i ts enti re ty: T HE C O UR T : Yo u c a n a ddr e s s i t
. B u tl i k e I s a i d,

Iwil l go t h ro u gh i t, but i fyo u ar e g oi ng to add ress w hy you thi nk M r. H und t i s an expert, Iwant to k no w w hy he ’ s ane xpe r t, what he s a i d, a nd h o w h e dr e w the c o nc l us i on because ther e a re a l ot ofco m m ents th at he m ade fro m a sel f

- answ er ed que st i o nna i r e bythe de f en d ant. And f ro m thati t a pp eared, atl eas t

— an d I ’m go i ng ba ck f ro m r eco l l ecti on r i g htno w, tha t o ne di agno se d the probl em wh i ch he m ay be abl e t o do, psychol ogi sts do that t o som e degr ee, and then ta l ks about hi s cure an d ev eryth ing else. Idid n’t h ear an y exp ertis e o n th at, w h et h er or n otp ris on isN o. 08

- 1477 23

M r. J am es Fo ster is Sm ith’s ap p oin ted cou nsel. 1 going to be good for hi m o r bad f or

hi m , and w hethero r n ot h e ca n be cur ed i n pr i so n. N o w, my e xpe r i en ce fr o m de al i ng wi thpe o pl e th atIha ve s en t t o i ns ti tu
ti o ns i s th atthe i ns ti tu tions ha ve e xp erts in a llth ese fi elds , and they de term i ne wh etherpeop l e a re tr eat abl e, h ow lon g t h e y’r e t re at ab le, an d if they’ re cured, then they can

— t hey can release som eb od y I ha d given l if e to at any t im e. I can ’tm ak e them ho ld o nto a p e r s o n. Onc e he hi t s t he B ur eau ofPri sons,i t ’ s up to t he Burea u of P ri son s h ow l on g they’re going to keep th em up to t he m axi m um t hat I gi ve. M R. F OS TE R: I ’ m not f ol l owing you, Ju d ge . You 1 sente nce som eone to X num ber o f m on th s t o t h e B u re au of P ris o n s, w it h due r e s pect,t he B ur e a u o fPri s o ns c a n’ tj o c ke yy o urs e nt e nc e a r o und . THE COURT: I ’ m s o r r y , M r . Fos t er . Tha t ’ s n o t my

un ders t and i ng. I have had people t hat I ’ ve sent t o p r i son f or30 ye ar s,and 8, 9, 10 years the y r elease t h em b e i t o v e r c r o wdi ng,be i twha t e v e rr e a s o ns24 N o. 08

- 1477 t hey w ant. I t ’ s und ert heirj u r i sdict i o n. N ow, i fI sente nce som ebo dy to 10 or 15 yea rs , theycan’ t up i t to 30 or40 yea r s. T he y d on’t h ave th at p ow er, Idon’ t thi nk. M R. FOSTER: I have j ust never i n the yea rs I ’ ve practi ced, never been f or tunate enough to re prese nt a perso n w ho w as re l eas ed ea r l y f r o m a f ede r al pr i so n sh o r t o fthe 85 p er c en t s in c e w e g otrid of p ar ole boar ds. Ineve r saw i t happ en; neve r r ea d a c as e c i tingtha t th eyha d the au th o r i tyt o do tha t, b ut

— THE COU RT: M r . F o st er, thi s i s pr egui del i ne s. I th i nk

you w ere invol ved i n a drugcas e that Ihad, the Blo om peopl e. M R. FOSTER: Ir em em berthatvaguel y. TH E CO U RT: A nd se ver alo ftho se pe op le re c eived

ver y, ve ryheav y s en tence s, and they we r e r e l e a s e d. Don’t get m e wrong, i t wasn’tthey wer en ’ t [ si c] r el ea se d in months , b ut th e y w e r e r e l e a s e d f a r b e f o r e th e t i me th a t, y o u k n o w, Ih a d s e n t e n c e d th e m. M R
. FO ST E R : A nd I d o th ink th a t b a c k th ere w he re

w e use d to say a r u l e o fthum b was on e-thi rd and w here we sti l l had pa-N o. 08

- 1477 25

ro l e bo ar ds, Ithi nk i t was possibl e. B ut, boy, Ithink tod ay th ey d o 85 pe rcent ofwh at you gi ve them m i nus a very

— a l ot ofci rcum sta nce. THE COUR T: I lo se t r a c ko fthe m, Mr
. F o s ter, af ter

they l eave m y c ourt, but m y u n d ers t a ndi ngi s t ha t t he B ur e a u o fPri s o ns h av e a lot of s ay . Bu t that’ s nei ther here norther e. R
. 116, at 37-39 (em p ha sis add ed ). Of c ours e, as the m aj or i ty and the g ove rnm ent c oncede, the B O P d oes not“ ha ve a l o t o fs ay ” i n de te r m i ni ngthe release d ates for fed eral p risoners. R ath er, release d ates are d et er m in ed b y s ta tu te
. See 18 U
. S. C. § 3624
. Subse cti on ( a) pr o vi des th at“ [ a] pr i so ne r s ha l l b e r el ea se d b y the Bur ea u ofP risons o n the da te o fthe e xpi r at i o n o fthe pri sone r’ s ter m of i m pri sonm ent, l ess any ti m e credi ted toward the ser vi ce o fthe pri sone r’ s s entence as pro vi ded in sub sect ion (b). ” Sub sect ion (b) govern s cred it tow ard ser vi ce ofa sente nce f or“s ati sf acto rybehav i or . ” Un der th at p rovisi o n , a prisone r w ho h as d isplayed “exe m p lary com pli ance with i nsti tuti onaldisc i pli naryr egul ati ons” m ay re cei ve a cr edi t o fup to fi fty- f our days perye ar toward co m ple ti on o fthe se n te nce. Thi s a m ounts to a fifte en p er c en t red u c tio n for a p ris on er w h o ea rn s t h e fu ll cre ditduri ng ea ch ye ar o fthe ter m o fi m pri sonm ent. Ackn o wl edg i ngthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s er r o r, the g o ve r nm en t ar gu es o n ly th at itw as h ar m les s. See Fe d. R. Cri m . P. 52 ( a) ( “A ny er ro r, defect, ir re gul ar i ty, o r var i ance that doe s no t aff ect su bsta nti alr i ghts m ust be di sr ega rded. ”)
. Ido not bel i eve such a n er ro r coul d be har m l ess .26 N o. 08

- 1477 T he re are tw o significant p r o blem s w ith th e m aj ority’ s anal ysi s o fthi s i ssue. Fi rst, a di str i ct j ud ge w ho be l i eve s the BO P can re l eas e a pri sone r at any t i m e, ei therbec ause th e p ris on er h as be en cu re d or b ec au se th e p ri s o n is o ve r cr o wded, mis ta k en l y thi nk s he i s se nt en ci nga de f en d an t to a term of up t o tw en tyy ea r s r athe r tha n a st r ai g htt wenty y ears. A ny de f en dan t ca n r ea di l y t el l the di ff er en ce betwee n a fi xe d t er m o ft wenty y ea r s ( m i nus fi fte enpe r ce ntf o r g o o d be ha vi o r i n the fede r als y st em) a nd a t er m of up to twenty year s. M ostp ri sone rs w oul d prefer th e l a t t e r . I fth e j u d g e d i d n o tu n d e r s t a n d th a tth e d e f en dant w o ul d s e r v e a tl e a s ts e v e nt e e n o fthe t we nty y e a rs , buti ns te ad th o ug httha t S m i thc o ul d b e r el ea se d b y the BO P as soo n as he w as c u red, then the co urt did not und er sta nd the gr avi ty ofthe sente nce. Se cond, bec ause the c ourtbel i eve d that BOP experts w ou ld d et er m in e w h en Sm ith co u ld be sa fely rele as ed , i t del ega ted to the BO P the cour t’ s o w n re sponsibi l i ty f or det er m ining ho w dang er o us S m i thi s an d whethe r he coul d be r ehabi l i tat ed. Thi s m i sta ken bel i efal so al l owed th e cou rt to be dism issi ve of Sm ith’s proffered exp ert be ca us e th e co ur t as su m ed a BOP e xpe r two u l d “ det er m i ne w hetherpeopl e a re tr eata b le, how l ong they’ re tr eat abl e, an d i fthe y ’ r e cu r ed[

. ] ” R. 11 6, a t 38
. W i ththa t as su m pti o n, a co u r t wo u l d h a v e n o n e e d t o s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r t he quali fica tions orte sti m ony ofthe defe nd ant’ s e xpert on thos e i ssues . M r. H und t, S m i th’ s pro ff er ed expert, te sti fi ed that he i s a l i censed cl i ni cal soc i al w or ker and ce rt ifi ed add i cti ons counsel or . H e r ece i ved hi s g ra du ate degr ee fro m th e U n ive rs ity of C h ica go , an d h a s rec eiv ed ad d iti onaltr ai ni ng fro m the f edera l g overnm ent in the tr eat
-N o. 08

- 1477 27

The m aj ority corr ect ly points out that Sm ith did not appeal 2 the dist ri ctcourt’ s finding thatH und t’ s tes ti m ony w as enti tl ed t o l i t t l e w e i gh t
. I a ddr e s s the e ff e c to fthe c ou r t ’ s m i s un de r s t a nd

i ng o n the r ej ec t i on ofthe e xpe rtt o g iv e c ont ex t, t o e xpl ai n the pos s ibl e wide

- ra ngi ng e ff ec t s ofs uc h a m i s appr eh en s i on, an d bec aus e the gove rn m en ti n its b ri efar gue s thatthe c ol l oqu y con cern ing the “ sid e-iss u es” (spec ifi cally , the early release is sue) w as re n d ered “com plet el y m eaningle ss ” once the court disc ounted the ex pert. To the c ontra ry , the court’ s dism is sal ofthe e xpe rtwas l i ke l y a s i de- eff ec tofi t s m i s under s t andi ng abou t the rol e ofthe BO P in e arl y rel eas e. m en t of sex offen d ers. H e ha d been treating sex offen d ers f orapproxi m ate l y t en ye ar s a t the ti m e o fhi s t est i m ony, m ost l y forthe Dep ar tm en t ofCor re cti ons i n I nd i ana. M r. H und t a l so tol d the di str i ct j ud ge that he o ften t est i fi es i n cour t, pre dom i na n tly f orthe pros ecuto r’ s o ffi ce. The se c red ent i al s ar e no t ea si l y di smi ss ed, a l th o ug h the dist ri ct cour t coul d, i n i ts disc re ti on, rej ect them as i nadeq u at e. B u t t h e c ou rtm ay n otrejec t a n ex p er t b ec au se it m i st ake nl y b el i eve s i t ca n del ega te to the BOP’s expert s th e ta sko fa ss es singS m i th ’ s po te nt i alf o r r ehab i l i ta ti o n. A s Ir ead the sente nci ng tr anscr i pt, i t a pp ear s th e di str i ct cou rt rel ied at least in p art on th at m istaken beli ef. 2 T h e m ajorit y s ta te s t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rt“e x p re ss ly d isc ou n te d th e re lev an c y of t h e e n tir e d i sc u ss ion of ea rly re l eas e t o sente n c ing, st ati ng tha t i t was ‘ nei therher e no r the r e . ’ ” S up ra at18
. W hy we shoul d accept the di str i ct cour t’ s bl i the di sm i ssa l o fthe si gni fi cance ofi ts own er ro r i s m yst i fyi ng. W e hav e no o bl i gat i on t o defe r to a di str i ct c o u rtm ak in g a n err or of law

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. We s ley , 42 228 N o. 08

- 1477 F
. 3d 50 9, 5 12 ( 7th Ci r . 2005) ( r ev i ew o fa n un der l y i ng legal ruling is non -deferen tial)

. The m aj or i ty ci tes the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s l ate r sta tem ent, “Ido n’ t ha ve a ny b as i s to s ay th ey ’ r e g o i ngt o l ethi m o ut ear l y, ” sup ra at18 , as e vid en c e t h at th e c ou rtco rre c tly u n d er st oo d th e l a w r ela tin g t o th e B O P ’s a u th or ity
. See R. 1 16 , a t 93
. Butwe m us t r ev i ew thi s st at ementi n the conte xt o fthe enti re co l l oquy. A s quot ed a b ove , defense c o u n s e l a t t e mpt e d t o c o r r e c tthe c o u r t ’ s e r r o r o fl a w, noti ng tha t under c u rrent f edera l l aw , al ldefendants ser ve at l eas t ei ghty- fi ve perce nt ofthei r sente nces. R. 11 6, at 38- 39. A tte m pti ng to r epeat this c or re cti on o fthe l aw l ate r, defense counselsa i d, “[Y]o u sai d m aybe they ’ l l l et hi m l oo se ear l y. J ud ge, Id on’ t be l i eve theywil l

. ” R. 11 6, at9 3. The c o ur t then r epe at ed i ts e ar l i ere r r o r, c o unt er i ng w i th, “ Is a i d the y c o ul d, ” me a ningthe c o ur tb e l i e ved that the BOP had the l egal author i ty to re l eas e S m i th ear l y. R. 11 6, at93
. W hen the cour t f ol l owed thi s e rr or w i th i ts sta tem ent that i t d i d not “ have any b asi s t o say th ey’ re go i ng to l et hi m o ut ea rl y, ” the co urt c lea rly m eant i t had no factual basis t o bel i eve S m i th would be re l eas ed ear l y; there w as, aft erall, n o w ay f orthe cour t t o know w hetherthe BO P w oul d be abl e t o trea t S m i th and d ec lar e h i m cure d. R. 11 6, at93
. There i s no ev i dence i n th i s r e c o r d th a t th e c o u r t e v e r u n d e r s t o o d th att he BO P has no l ega l autho ri ty to re l eas e S m i th ea rl y. The m aj or i ty al so sta tes that “the f act that Sm i th co uld be re l e a s e d u po n s e r v i ng8 5 % o fh i s s e nt e nc e ( the c o r r ect und er sta nd i ng o fea rl y r el eas e un d er curr ent l aw ) was m enti oned se ver alti m es du ri ng the se nten ci ng hea ri ngsN o. 08

- 1477 29 hel d ther ea fter[

. ] ” Su pra , at17

- 18. The o nl y r efer ences to th e eighty-fi ve p ercen t figure th at Ic ou ld fi nd in th e record after the error s c ited ab ove w ere: (1) d efense cou ns el’ s st at ementtha t “[ w]e c anput hi m i n the r e f o r 20 ye ar s, a nd at 85 p ercen t w e know they ’l l tu rn h im l oose, an d there’s a p oss ibi l i ty yo u sayof get ti ng l oo se ear l i er . ” R. 11 6, at95 ; (2) g ov er n m en t c ou n se l’s s ta te m en t t h a t “ [e]v en a m ax im u m se n te n c e o f 20 ye ar s, w h ich m ea n s t h at h e w ou ld do 1 7 years o fr ea l t i m e, g et s hi m o utwhenhe ’ s 40
. ” R. 11 7, at 3 4; a nd ( 3) g o ve r nm en t co uns el ’ s o bl i que referenc e tha t “[w ]e’r e asking to im p os e l ifetim e sup ervis ed rele as e g ive n t h e fa c t t h at h e’ll b e 4 0 y ea rs old w hen he g ets o ut[
. ] ” R. 11 7, at43
. The m aj or i ty conte nd s that, al though there w er e s eve ra l ad d itio n al re fer en c es to th e cor re c t un d er st an d in g of e ar ly re l eas e, “nothi ng w as sai d at the l ate r sente nci ng hea ri ngs ab o utthe po ss ibi l i tyo fa n e ar l i er release f o r S m i thi fthe BO P deter m i ned he w as cured. ” Sup ra , a t 18
. Butno ne o ftho se s ubs eque nts ta te m en ts b y c o uns elpr o vi de an y evi dence thatthe cour t underst ood thati ts or i gi nal st ate
m ent o fthe law w as in e rr or . Bal anced ag ai nst defense co uns el ’ s at te m pts t o c l ea r up th e is su e ( g o ve r nm en t coun selr em ai ned str angel y s i l ent a s defense counsel a t t e mp t e d t o c o r r e c tth e c o u r t ’ s e r r o r ) , w e h a v e a n a l a r mi ng l y c o nfus ed st at ementfr o m the c o ur t r eg ar d in gthe au th o r i tyo fthe BOP to r el ea se pr i so ne r s ea r l y . The ab se nc e o fa ny s ubs eque ntrefere nc e to the e r r o r dur i ng th e fi n a l s e n t e n c i n gh e a r i n gd i d n o tc u r e th e p r o b l e m. Ial so see no need f or“cl ai rv oya nce” ( sup ra at19 ) wh en com m on s ense tel l s us that thi s i s the kind o fer ro r that w oul d perv ade a j ud ge’ s deci si on- m aki ng pro cess . M or e-30 N o. 08

- 1477

o ve r, the r e i s no s pec ia l r ea so n t o r equi r e th atthe j udg e r epe at th e er r o r at th e fi na l se nt en ci ng he ar i ng before w e treat it as a real err or. A n error is harm less i f, consi deri ng the r eco rd as a w hol e, “the er ro r did notaff ect th e d ist ric t cou rt ’s sele c tio n of th e sen te n c e i m p os ed .” Willia m s v. U nited Sta tes , 50 3 U.S
. 193, 203 ( 1992 )
. A n er ro r th at ch an ged the cou rt’s basic fr am e w o r k for d eterm i ni ng the se ntence cannot be c al l ed harm l ess . F i na l l y, c i tingthe S upr eme Co ur t’ s o pi ni o n i n Willia m s, the m aj or i ty re m ar ke d t hat “ Sm i th be ar s the bur den of sh ow ing tha t the district cou rtre l i e d on the p oss ibi l i ty of Sm i th’ s e ar l y re l eas e pr i orto the 85% thr esho l d w hen sente nci ng hi m . ” S u pra at 16 (em p ha sis i n origi na l)

. The Court’ s fullst ate m ent o fthe sta nd ar d i s instr ucti ve: W e co ncl ud e that the par ty chal l engi ng the se ntence on a pp eal, al though i t be ar s the i ni ti al b u rd en o f sh ow in g t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rtrelie d u p on an inv alid f acto r at sente nci ng, does nothave the add i ti onal bu rd en of p roving th a t the i nv ali d f acto r w as d eterm i na ti ve i n th e se nt en ci ng dec i si o n. Ra th er, o nc e the cou rt of ap p eals ha s d ecid ed that the d istri ct cou rt m i sappli ed the G uidel i nes, a re m and i s a pp ro pri ate unle ss the r evi ew i ng co urt concl ud es, o n the re cor d as a whol e, th at th e er r o r was ha r m l es s, i
. e. , that the er ror d id no t aff ec t th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s se l ec ti o n o fthe sen ten ce im p osed

. See Fed

. Ru le Crim

. Proc. 52(a).N o. 08

- 1477 31

A lthoug h the err o r i n Sm ith’ s cas e was one ofl aw rather 3 thanthe r es ul tofa m is appl i c at i on ofthe gui del i ne s , the s t andard f or harm le ss err or i s the sam e. The m aj or i t y a s s um es thatI do “ notm ea n t o i m pl y that al l of 4 the di s t ri c tc our t ’ s s en t encing d ec i s i ons s i nc e the pas s age of the Se nt en c i ng R efor m A c tof1984 w er e i nappr opr i at e. ” I m ake no c omm e nto n c a s e s tha ta r e n ot b ef or e us . I c e r t a i nl y ho pe the d is tr ic t c ourt j ud ge has not hel d this m is taken beli efs ince the passage ofthatAct, and that this w as a m om entar y lapse , a b lip ofm em ory or s peech that aff ect s even dist inguis hed j ur i s t s from t i m e t o t i m e. I fwe ha d re m ande d t he c as e, the d istrict j u d g e m igh t ha v e clarified tha t he w as r eferring on ly (co n tin u ed ...) Wi l l i a ms , 50 3 U.S
. at20 3. A s I n ot ed abo ve, Ibel i eve 3 S m i thha s m ethi s bur deno fde m o ns tr at i ngtha t th e dist ri ct c ourtr elied o n an inval i d fa cto r at sente nci ng. Sm i th d oes n ot bea r “the add i ti onalbu rden ofp ro vi ng tha t th e in val i d f ac to r was de te r m i na ti ve i n the s en te nc i ng deci si on. ” Wi l l i a ms , 5 03 U
. S. at20 3. I n harm l ess er ro r anal ysi s, i t i s the go ver n m e n t’s bur dent o pr o ve tha t th e er ro r w as n otp rej u d icia l. U nited Sta tes v . M a n soo ri, 48 0 F. 3d 514, 52 3 (7t h Ci r. 20 07)
. The go ver nm ent has f ai l ed to m eetthatburden her e. The dis tr i ct c ourtm i gh t wel l deci de aga i n to se ntence Sm i th to a ter m o f t w enty yea rs , and Ido notm ean t o i m plywith m y d isse nt thattwenty y ear s would notbe a re as on ab le s en te n c e. B u t e v en d efe n d an ts w h o c om m it the m ostabho rr ent c ri m es d eserve a sente nci ng deci si on th at is n otinflu en c ed by lega l err or s if w e a re to m ain ta in th e rule of law

. I n li gh t of th e d istri ct cou rt’s le g al err or, 432 N o. 08

- 1477

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 to pre- guid el ines cas es . W e have only the t ran sc ri p t on w hich to r el y at this s tage, how ever, and the t ransc ri pt twice i nd i c a t e s a m i s t a ke n be l i e ftha ti s n e ve r c or r e c t e d.

4- 17- 09 w hi ch w ent uncor re cted bythe cour t f or the re m ai nd ero f th e se nt en ci nghe ar i ng, Ib el i ev e we s ho ul d v ac at e th e sente nce and r em and for a new sentenci ng. There f or e, Ir espect full y di sse nt.