In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________

No. 07-2794

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RALPH SHANNON,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 06 CR 179—Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.

____________

ARGUED JANUARY 11, 2008—DECIDED FEBRUARY 29, 2008

____________

Before BAUER, POSNER and EVANS, Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge. Ralph Shannon pleaded guilty to

one count of possession of child pornography, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4). The district court sentenced

Shannon to 46 months’ imprisonment and a life term of

supervised release. On appeal, he argues that (1) the

federal sentencing scheme approved in United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)

violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments; and (2) his

sentence was unreasonable. For the following reasons,

we affirm.
2 No. 07-2794

In 2003, federal authorities initiated a nationwide investigation into a company called Regpay, which owned

and operated various members-only internet websites

containing images of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct with other children and adults. The investigation revealed that Shannon was one of Regpay’s paying

customers, and that he had accessed several pornographic websites through Regpay. On March 24, 2005,

investigators executed a search warrant at Shannon’s

home, seizing two desktop computers, three computer

hard drives, computer media, child-sized sex toys, and

a child-sized mannequin. An examination of the computers and hard drives revealed over 400 images containing child pornography.

On April 20, 2007, Shannon pleaded guilty to one

count of possession of child pornography, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4). The presentencing investigation

report (“PSR”), which the district court adopted, stated

that based on Shannon’s criminal history category (I) and

the offense level (twenty-three), the guidelines range

was forty-six to fifty-seven months’ imprisonment with

a range of two years to life of supervised release. The

PSR recommended a sentence of 57 months’ imprisonment with a life term of supervised release.

At sentencing, Shannon addressed his objections to the

PSR, including the recommended life term of supervised

release. The court stated that though Shannon’s criminal history category was the lowest possible, his “interest

in sexually explicit depictions of children demonstrates

a substantial need to protect the public.” Taking into

consideration Shannon’s history and characteristics, as

well as the seriousness of the offense, the court found

that a sentence of imprisonment on the low end of the
No. 07-2794 3

sentencing guideline range would protect the community and reflect the serious nature of Shannon’s actions

“when the sentence is coupled with a life term of supervised release with stringent conditions.” The court recommended that Shannon be afforded the opportunity to

participate in sex offender treatment while incarcerated.

The district court then sentenced Shannon to 46 months’

imprisonment, and a life term of supervised release.

Shannon raises two issues on appeal, the first of which

we can dispose of in haste. Shannon argues (as far as

we can discern) that his sentence was unconstitutional

under the Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment

as interpreted by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466,

120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) because the postBooker guidelines scheme impermissibly allows district

court judges to find facts that affect federal sentences.

Because Shannon failed to raise this issue before the

trial court, it is forfeited, and our review is for plain

error. United States v. Matthews, 505 F.3d 698, 707 (7th

Cir. 2007). We have considered similar arguments on

multiple occasions, and have rejected them. See United

States v. Roti, 484 F.3d 934, 937 (7th Cir. 2007); United States

v. Savage, 505 F.3d 754, 764 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v.

Hollins, 498 F.3d 622, 633 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v.

White, 472 F.3d 458, 464-65 (7th Cir. 2006). District court

judges do not violate the Constitution when they find

facts by a preponderance of the evidence for purposes of

calculating a guideline range, as long as the guidelines

remain advisory and the ultimate decision is based on

consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. Hollins, 498 F.3d

at 633.

In his other argument on appeal, Shannon also contends that the district court failed to adequately articulate
4 No. 07-2794

1 Those factors include, in pertinent part:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the

history and characteristics of the defendant; 

(2) the need for the sentence imposed—

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote

respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for

the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the

defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational

or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

the reasons for her decision to sentence Shannon to the

guidelines recommendation of lifetime supervision. We

review sentences for reasonableness, using an abuse of

discretion standard. United States v. Sura, 511 F.3d 654,

664 (7th Cir. 2007). A sentence is reasonable if the district

court gives meaningful consideration to the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),1

 including the advisory

sentencing guidelines, and arrives at a sentence that is

objectively reasonable in light of the statutory factors and

the individual circumstances of the case. Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596-97, 169 L.Ed.2d

445 (2007); United States v. Wachowiak, 496 F.3d 744, 748

(7th Cir. 2007). The court need not address every § 3553(a)

factor in checklist fashion, explicitly articulating its conclusions regarding each one. United States v. Brock, 433

F.3d 931, 934-36 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Dean,

414 F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 2005). Instead the court may
No. 07-2794 5

simply give an adequate statement of reasons, consistent

with § 3553(a), for thinking the sentence it selects is appropriate. United States v. Harris, 490 F.3d 589, 597 (7th

Cir. 2007). A sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is presumed reasonable. United States v. Haskins,

511 F.3d 688, 695 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Rita v. United States,

___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007));

United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005)

(adopting a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness

for within-guidelines sentences). 

In this case, the district court sufficiently explained

Shannon’s sentence, including the life term of supervised

release. The court took into consideration: (1) Shannon’s

limited criminal history, see § 3553(a)(1); (2) the serious

nature of the offense, see id.; (3) the fact that Shannon’s

interest in child pornography demonstrated a “substantial need to protect the public,” see § 3553(a)(2)(C); and

(4) Shannon’s need for sex offender treatment and supervision, see § 3553(a)(2)(D). After explaining these factors,

the court found that a sentence at the low end of the

guidelines range for imprisonment and at the high end of

the range for supervised release was required in this case.

The court adequately addressed the objections raised by

Shannon, and demonstrated nothing short of a thorough

and thoughtful analysis of Shannon’s case. Shannon

presents nothing to disturb the rebuttable presumption

of reasonableness of his within-guidelines sentence.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM Shannon’s sentence.

USCA-02-C-0072—2-29-08