# 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- 14 41

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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.

Jo hn T. Bey ers

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 14 43

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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.

Jo hn T. Bey ers

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Nov em be r 14 , 20 16 Fi le d: Apri l 2 7, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RI LEY, Ch ie f Ju dg e, SMI TH and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

. 1

__

__ __ __ __ __
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Jo hn Beyers was cau gh t wit h ch il d po rn og rap hy in May 20 13
, le ss th an a y ear aft er ge tt in g ou t of pr is on fo r a 20 07 ch il d- po rn og rap hy co nv i c t io n. Beyers pl ed

gu il ty to acce ss in g an d po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap hy, se e 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B),

an d po ss es si ng ch il d ob sc en it y , se e id

. § 14 66 A(b )(2 ), an d al so ad m it te d vi ol at in g th e
te rm s of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Beyers to th e st at ut or y 2

m an da to ry m in im

um fo r each of

fen se —t en y ears fo r th e 20 13 co un ts an d fiv e fo r th e

su pe rv is ed -rel eas e vi ol at io n, see id

. §§ 22 52 (b )(2 ), 35 83 (k )—a nd ran th e se nt en ces fo r th e ne w c on du ct co nc ur ren tl y to each ot he r, bu t co ns ecu ti ve ly to t he rev oc at io n

se nt en ce. See id

. § 35 84 (a) (co nc ur ren t an d con se cu ti ve se nt en ces ). Beyers argu es

m ak in g th e se nt en ces co ns ecu ti ve was an ab us e of di sc ret io n an d hi s res ul ti ng fif te en

y ear te rm of im

pr is on m en t is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. See 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 (ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ); Uni te d St at es v. Mo or e, 56 5 F.3 d 43 5, 43 7- 38 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd of rev ie w). Beyers’s ap pe al cen te rs on ho w th e di st ric t

co ur t wei gh ed di ffer en t as pe ct s o f hi s b ack gr ou nd in reac hi ng it s d eci si on

.

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1 St at es Co ur t of App eal s for th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10
, 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.

The Hon or ab le Bet h Ph il li ps , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e f o r th e W es te rn 2 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-Fi rs t, Beyers id en t i f i e s th ree m it ig at in g fact or s he sa y s th e di st ric t co ur t ig no red

. Two of t h e s e a r e ch il dh oo d tra um as th at , acco rd in g to Beyers, “ ha ve in flu en ced hi s be ha vi or an d hi s a d d i c ti on to ch il d po rn og rap hy”: th e se xu al ab us e Beyers hi m se lf su ffer ed whe n he was a y ou ng ch il d an d Beyers’s fat he r co m m it ti ng

su ic id e whe n Beyers w a s a te en ag er. The th ird m it ig at in g fact or is Beyers’s

am en ab il it y

to th erap y

an d d es ire for tre at m en t.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ig no re th es e m at te rs —t he y were a m ajor f o c u s of Beyers ’s s e n te nc in g he ari ng

. The di st ric t co ur t he ard ab ou t Beyers’s ba ck gr ou nd
, pa st tre at m en t, an d wis h fo r he lp “ ge t[t in g] ou t fro m un de rn eat h [h is ad di ct io n]” fro m bo th Beyers an d a th erap is t who rev ie wed Beyers’s fil e an d i n t e r v i e wed hi m

. The
di st ric t co ur t act iv el y qu es ti on ed bo th of th em ab ou t th e tre at m en t op ti on s av ai la bl e
to Beyers du rin g hi s in carc erat io n. The di st ric t co ur t di rect ly res po nd ed to Beyers’s

arg um en t ab ou t hi s ne ed fo r tre at m en t whe n it to ld hi m “ t h i s i s u l t i m at el y y ou r

res po ns ib il it y a n d s om et hi ng th at y ou ha ve to ta ke co nt ro l of
, an d th ere’s on ly so

m uc h t ha t o th ers can do to he lp y ou ad dr es s t hi s p ro bl em .”

“ [W] h e r e t h e di st ric t co ur t he ard arg um en t

. . . a bo ut sp eci fic

. . . f act or s, we

m ay pr es um e th at th e co ur t co ns id ered th os e fact or s” ev en if th e co ur t di d no t ad dr es s th em ex pr es sl y

. Uni te d St at es v. Keat in g, 57 9 F.3 d 89 1, 89 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Here,
whe re th e di st ric t co ur t di d ex pr es sl y ad dr es s th e es se nc e of Beyers’s po si ti on —t ha t he m us t reco gn iz e hi s pr ob le m an d whe re it co m es fro m an d m us t wan t to ov erco m e it
, an d ne ed s m or e an d be tt er he lp to do so —we are sa ti sf ie d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t

“ ‘fail [] t o 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

. ’”
Mo or e, 56 5 F.3 d at 43 8 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Kowal
, 52 7 F.3 d 74 1, 74 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )).

On th e ot he r si de of th e sc al e, Beyers arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld no t ha ve fau lt ed hi m fo r “ arg u[ in g] [h e ha d] ne ve r ha rm ed an y on e.” Acco rd in g to Beyers, he

m is sp ok e whe n he sa id
, in hi s al lo cu ti on , “ I’ve ne ve r hu rt an y pe rs on .” Beyers in si st s

-3

-he fu ll y ap pr eci at es th e “ de va st at in g” ha rm cau se d by th e pr od uc ti on an d us e of ch il d

po rn og rap hy, ha vi ng be en se xu al ly ab us ed as a ch il d hi m se lf, an d jus t m ean t “ he ha d

no t ph ys ic al ly hu rt a ch il d th ro ug h act ua l se xu al co nt act .” The reco rd m ak es cl ear th e di st ric t co ur t kn ew wha t Beyers m ean t an d si m pl y to ok is su e wit h ho w he sa id it

. In
th e d is tri ct co ur t’s wo rd s: “ I un de rs ta nd wha t y ou ’re saying , bu t t he pro bl em is th is
is a ve ry se rio us of

fen se th at ha s d e v a st at in g co ns eq ue nc es to th e vi ct im s of th is
of fen se .” A l t h o ug h th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e a po in t of rep ud ia ti ng Beyers’s li te ral
cl ai m , it s ex pl an at io n fo r ru nn in g th e se nt en ces co ns ecu ti ve ly fo cu se d on th e se ve rit y of wha t Beyers di d an d h i s hi st or y of fai le d tre at m en t rat he r th an on th is is ol at ed

st at em en t. Fu rth er, ev en if th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng was at tri bu ta bl e in so m e pa rt to Beyers’s un fo rtu na te ph ras in g, we se e no ab us e of di sc ret io n i n vi ewin g Beyers’s

em ph as is on cri m es he di d no t co m m it as po te nt ia ll y refl ect in g a fai lu re to co m e to

te rm s wi th th e “ de va st at in g c on se qu en ces to th e v ic ti m s o f th is off en se .” 3

W e al so reject Beyers’s clai m th at th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y pu ni sh ed hi m fo r “ po in t[i ng ] ou t de fic ie nc ie s in th e tre at m en t he rece iv ed ” be fo re an d aft er hi s 20 07

co nv ic ti on . He i s refe rri ng to th e di st ric t co ur t’s st at em en t: “ I’m real ly trou bl ed by

t h i s c on si st en t arg um en t— or at le as t ex pl an at io n, m ay be
, wou ld be a be tt e r ph ras e—t ha t th e tre at m en t was n’t su ffi ci en t.” Beyers co un te rs wit h as se rti on s ab ou t wha t th e reco rd do es an d do es no t sh ow— “ [t]he re is no fact ua l su pp or t in th e reco rd

to bu tt res s th e no ti on th at th erap y wou ld no t wor k or th at Mr. Beyers was so m eh ow

res po ns ib le fo r hi s la ck of su cces s in hi s pa st effo rts ” an d, to th e co nt rary, pa rts of th e

re c o r d affi rm at iv el y “ su gg es t[] th at th ere was a pr ob le m wit h th e se x of fen de r

Si m il arl y , in res po ns e to Beyers’s su gg es ti on th at th e fact he ne ve r ph y si cal ly 3 ab us ed a ch il d “ sh ou ld ha ve be en [a] m it ig at in g fact or [],” we s i mply ob se rv e th at Beyers was se nt e n c e d fo r acce ss in g an d po ss es si ng po rn og rap hi c an d ob sc en e pi ct ur es of ch il dr en , se e 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 52 (a)( 4) (B), 14 66 A(b )(2 ), no th in g el se

. Had Beyers co m

m it te d ot he r cri m es , he wou ld ha ve face d th e po ss ib il it y of ot he r ch arg es

an d a lo ng er se nt en ce. In sh or t, th e hypo th et ic al cri m es Beyers di d no t co m m it do no t

m it ig at e th e rea l o ne s h e d id

.
-4

-tre at m en t” Beye r s r e cei ve d. Tha t res po ns e ai m s at th e wro ng ta rg et

. The so rt of

ev id en ce Beyers de sc rib es (o r it s ab se nc e) go es to whe th er Beyers’s ex pl an at io n th at he reo ffen de d be cau se th e syste m fai le d hi m was accu rat e, bu t th at is no t th e is su e th e di st ric t co ur t ad dr es se d.

Rat he r, th e di st ric t co ur t t h o u gh t Beyers’s pr of fere d ex pl an at io n was si gn ifi can t a n d t r o u bl in g pr im ari ly be cau se , in th e di st ric t co ur t’s vi ew, Beyers’s
fo cu s on th e fai lu re of hi s pa st tre at m en t— who ev er was to bl am e—i m pl ie d he di d no t fu ll y acce pt th at hi s n e w c rimes were st il l “ ul ti m at el y [h is ] res po ns ib il it y .” The
di st ric t co ur t’s co m

m en ts al so su gg es t Beyers’s pa st in ab il it y to co nt ro l hi s co nd uc t th ro ug h tre at m en t ( a ga in
, wha te ve r th e cau se or th e qu al it y of th e tre at m en t)

co nt rib ut ed to th e di st ric t co ur t’s “ co nc ern ” ab ou t th e ris k of Beyers reo f f e n d in g
ag ai n an d th e ne ed to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic

. See 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 2) (C). Bo th li ne s of reas on in g an d co nc ern st rik e us as en ti rel y r eas on ab le

. Neit he r was an ab us e of
di sc ret io n.

Beyers’s la st arg um en t is th at , in m ak in g hi s se nt en ces co ns ecu ti ve , th e di st ric t

co ur t cl earl y m is

jud ge d th e pr op er ba la nc e be twee n th e va rio us se nt en ci ng fact or s it weig he d. On th is po in t, Bey ers m ai nl y jus t rep eat s hi s th eo rie s ab ou t whi ch fact or s th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou l d a n d sh ou ld no t ha ve co ns id ered

. The on ly real ad di ti on is Beyers’s su gg es ti on th at th e di s t r i ct co ur t sh ou ld ha ve gi ve n hi m m or e cred it fo r

reco gn iz in g hi s “ pr ob le m ” an d wan ti ng to ch an ge , be cau se “ [a]cti ng as [o ne ’s] own

m en ta l he al th ad vo cat e an d as ki ng fo r be tt er th erap y

. . . is ta ki ng res po ns ib il it y .” Yet

“ ‘[a] se nt en ci ng co ur t ha s wid e la ti tu de to weig h th e se ct io n 35 53 (a) fact or s in each

cas e an d as si gn so m e fact or s gr eat er weig ht th an ot he rs in de te rm in in g an ap pr op ria te

se nt en ce.’” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ric ha rt, 6 62 F.3d 10 37 , 10 54 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Lo z o ya , 62 3 F.3 d 62 4, 62 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )); se e al so id

. (“ Si m pl y b ecau se th e di st ric t co ur t weig he d th e rel ev an t fact or s m or e he av il y th an [ a de fen da nt ] wou ld pr efer do es no t m ean th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n.” ). The
di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ru n th e se nt en c e s c o n se cu ti ve ly was al so rei nf or ced by

-5

-ot he r co ns id erat io ns who se co un te rv ai li ng weig ht Beyers do es no t ad dr es s at al l,

n o t a b l y th e di st ric t co ur t’s “ co nc ern ” th at acce ss in g an d po ss es si ng ch il d

po rn og rap hy “ crea te s a da ng er to th e pu bl ic ” an d th at “ th e ram ifi cat io ns [fo r vi ol at in g th e te rm s o f su pe rv is ed rel eas e] hav e to be ap pr op ria te .”

The rel ev an t po li cy s t a t e m en t fro m th e U.S. Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on

reco m m en ds m ak in g pr is on te rm s fo r vi ol at i n g s up erv is ed -rel eas e co nd it io ns

c o n s e c u t iv e to an y ot he r se nt en ces

. See Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s § 7B 1.3 (f) & cm t. n.(4 ). It was no t an ab u s e o f di sc ret io n fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to fo ll ow t ha t ad vi ce h ere.

Beyers’s s en te nc es are af fir m ed

.

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

-6

-