## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f App ea ls

F o rth eS ev e n th C ir cu it
N o. 12

- 3154 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. W I LL I AMA . M ARTIN , D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 3:1 1CR30 20 6-GPM

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 30, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AY 28, 2013

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges. P ER C URI AM . W i l l i am M ar tin a ppea l s hi s 10

- y ea rs en tence f orposs ess i on o fchi l d pornog ra phy. Because th e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i d n o ta d d r e s s t wo o fMa r t i n ’ s a r g um en ts in mi ti g at i on, we va ca te hi s se nt en ce a nd r emand f orr ese ntenci ng. I n Jul y 2 010, an underco vero ffi cerdi sco ver ed that M artin ha d m ad e available on a fil e-sha ring netw ork n in e im a g e s an d vid eo s d ep ict in g c h ild p or n og ra p h y. A2 N o. 12

- 3154
sea rch ofthe hom e M ar ti n shar ed w i th hi s m othe r uncover ed h u n d re d s m or e im ag es an d se ve ra l vid eo s o fc h ild p o r n o g r a p h y o nt wo c o mp u t e r s inMa r t i n ’ s b e d r o o m. M ar ti n ple aded gui l ty to posse ssing chil d pornog ra phy. 18 U. S
. C. § 2 25 2( a) ( 4) ( B)
. The pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce rwho p rep ared t he pres en ten ce rep ort (“PSR ”) calculated M arti n’s to talo ffense l eve lat30 : hi s ba se offense l eve lwas 18, U
. S. S. G
. § 2G 2.2( a)(1) , and he recei v e d a 2 -l evel up w ard adj us tment be ca us e so m e o fthe mate r i alinv o l ve d pr epu b es c en t c h ild re n, i d. § 2G 2.2(b)(2), an oth er 2-l evel up w ard ad j u st m en t b e c a u s e M ar tin h ad d ist rib u te d im ag es via a fi l e - s h ar in g n et w or k, id. § 2G2
. 2(b) ( 3) ( F ) , a 4
- l ev elinc re as e b ec au se so m e o f th e m at e ria l w as vio len t in n at u re , id
. § 2 G2. 2(b) ( 4) , a 2
- l ev elinc r ea se b ec au se he u s e d a c om p u te r, id
. § 2 G2
. 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , a 5
- l e v e linc r e a se b ec au se h e p os se ss ed m or e th an 60 0 i m a g e s, id
. § 2 G2. 2(b)(7 ) ( D), and a 3

- l eve ldecr eas e be cause he acc ep te d res p on sib ility, id
. § 3E1. 1. Com bi ned w i th M ar ti n’s cat ego ryI I Icr i m i nalhist or y, the gui del i nes yi el ded an i m pri sonm ent ra nge of 121 to 15 1 m onths. Gi v e nth e t e n - y ea r s t a tu t o r y ma x i mu m s e n t e n c e , h o weve r, M ar ti n’s effecti ve gui del i nes r ange w as 120 m onths. 18 U
. S. C
. § 2252(b)(2); U
. S. S. G
. § 5G 1.1( c)(1). Th e PS R al so described si gni fi cant m ental

- heal th i ssues , not i ng tha t M ar ti n had been di agno sed with m ajor d ep re ss ive d iso rd er, d ys th ym ia, alc oh ol an d m ar ij uana depend ency, and pol ysubst ance abuse, and had re cei ved a “possibl e, but doubtful” di agno si s o f bi pol ar di so r der
. Acco r di ngt o the PS R, M ar tin h ad al so e nga ge d in s elf-m u tila tio nas a yo u th , ha d be en h os p ita l-N o. 12

- 3154 3 i z e d fo rmo o d d i s o r de r s , a nd h ad a t t e mpt e d s ui c i de se ve r al ti m es, m o st r ec en tly ab o ut o ne y ea r bef ore the re portwas w rit te n. M ar ti n, the PSR not ed, was not re c eiv in g m ed ica ti o n o r tre at m en t a t th e t im e o f h is ar re st because he c oul d not a ff or d i t. M ar tin di d no t o bj ec t to th e PS R c al cul at i o ns , b ut he ar gued that he sho uld r ecei ve a bel ow-gui del i nes se n te n c e fo r se ve ra l rea so n s. Firs t, h e a rg u ed t h ath is m ental

- heal th i ssues warra nted a l ow er se ntence because hi s be havi orco uld be m anage d throu gh tr eat
m ent. In supp ort of th i s a rgum ent, he pointed out that he had r ecent l y b egun m ental

- heal th and subst anc eabuse tr ea tm en t a nd had earned his GE D and co m ple ted a c o g n i t i v e - s k i l l s p r o g r a m a n d a wo r k p r o g r a m. He ar gued, to o, thatthe chi l d-por nogr aphy gui del i nes pr oduce s en te nc es l o ng ertha n n ec es sa r y t o s er ve the g o al s o f se nt en cingin c as es o fmer e po ss es si o n, a nd h e p r e s e n t e d a r t i c l e s a n d s tu di es to th i s e ffe c t . He furtherco ntended that g i ven the wide av ai l abi l i ty ofchi l d pornog ra phy, hi s o ffen se resul ted in l i ttl e incre m entalhar m to the chi l dren depi cted in the m ate ri al h e p o s s e s s e d
. An d due to a t r e n d t o wa r d b e l o wgu i d elin es se n te n c es in c h ild -p or n og ra p h y c as es , M ar tin u rg ed th ata sh or te r se n t e n c e w as n ec es sa ry to av oid unw ar ra nted dis pari ti es. The dis tr i ct c ourtadopted the p robati on offi cer ’ s guidel i nes c al cul ati ons and sentence d M ar ti n to 12 0 m onths’ im p risonm en t. I n ex p lainin g this sen ten ce, the cou rt note d that i t di d not pl ac e m u ch w ei ght o n deter re nce given its view th a t child-p ornogra p hy offen d ers w ere4 N o. 12

- 3154

u n d et er ra b le b ec au se th ey “a re n otrat ion al th in ke rs in th e fi r st pl ac e. ” N ev er th el es s, the c o ur t wento n t o hi g hl i ght “ speci fi c dete rre n c e, ” a l ong w i th the se ri ousness ofthe offense and the need t o p ro tectthe pu bl i c, as j usti fying i ts sente nce. On app eal, M ar ti n ar gues that hi s s entence i s pro cedu ra l l y unre aso nabl e be cause the di str i ct c ourti gnor ed hi s princ ip al argum ents that ( 1) a l engthyse ntence w as unnecessary beca use hi s per sonalchar acte ri sti cs i nd i c a t e a l o w l i k e l i ho o d o fr eci di v i s m, ( 2 ) the c hi l dpornog ra phy gui del ines produce exce ssi ve sente nces i n c hi l d- po r no g r aphy po ss es si o n c as es, ( 3) hi s con tr ibuti on to th e tot alhar m o fchi l d pornog ra phy w as ne g l i g ib l e , a nd ( 4 ) a s ho r t e r s e nt e nc e wa s ne c e s s a ry to a v o i d di s p a r i t i e s c r e a t e d b y th e t r e n d t o wa r d b e l o wgui del i nes s entence s forchi l d-por nogr aphy defendants. At s en te nc i ng, a di st r i ctc o urt m us t co ns i dera de fen dant’s princi pal, nonfri vol ous a rgum ents f orl eni en ce. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Chapman , 69 4 F.3 d 90 8, 91 3- 14 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 2)
. W e ha ve the r efo r e o rd er ed r es en te nc i ng when a di st r i ctc o ur t ei th erpa ss es o ve ra c o l o r ab l e ar g um en t in s i l en c e, s e eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob e r t s on , 66 2 F
. 3d 87 1, 87 9-8 0 (7t hC ir. 20 11 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi l l egas -M i randa , 57 9 F .3d 79 8, 80 1-0 2 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); U n i t e d Sta tes v. Cunni ngh am , 42 9 F
. 3d 673, 67 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) , o r w hen i ts disc u ssi on i s s o curso rythatwe cannot disc er n i ts re as on s fo r rej ec tin g th e a rg u m en t, see U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc hro eder, 536 F.3d 74 6, 75 5-5 6 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited St at e s v. M i randa , 505 F.3d 785 , 792-93, 796 (7th Cir. 2007). H ere, th e d istri ct cou rt’s f ail ure to add ress M artin’s ar gu m ents re gar ding hi s l i kel i hood o fr eci divi sm

—N o. 12

- 3154 5 parti cul ar l y in re gar d to hi s m ental

- heal th i ssues

— w arra n ts rem an d . M ar tin ’s le n gt h y a n d se riou s m en ta lheal th hi sto rywas detai l ed i n the PSR , w h ich al so note d that M ar ti n h ad m ade si gni fi cant pr ogr ess si nce r ecei vi ng tr eat m ent forhi s depre ssi on. The di str i ctc o ur t was no t r equi r ed to a cce pt M ar tin’ s ar g um e n t t h attre at m en t o f h is m en ta l-h ea lth iss u es w ou ld red uc e his l ikel ihood of reoffen d in g, bu t M artin’s po si ti o n was no t so l ac k i ngin mer i t as t o war r ant no r e s p o n se . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi dal, 7 0 5 F
. 3 d 74 2 , 74 4
- 45 (7th C ir
. 2013) (rem an d ing for resen ten cing w he re di st r i ctc o urt f ai l ed to a ddr es s defen dan t’ s ar g um en t that tr eat m ent of m ental

- heal th i ssues w oul d re n der hi m unl i k ely t o r eo ffend ); M i randa , 50 5 F
. 3d at 793 ( sam e)
. A nd the dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s g ener alacknow l edgm ent that M ar ti n had a “v er y, ve rydi ffi cul t life, ” which was “ no t g o i ngt o g eta ny b ett er ” do es no t sa ti sfy us th atth e jud ge ap p re c iat ed th atM ar tin w as se rio u sly ill orcon sid er ed that hi s poo r j ud gm ent m i ght i m prove w i th tr eat m ent. T he district c o u r t also shou ld h ave ad d ressed M artin’s ar gum ent that the chi l d-por nography guidel i nes do not approxi m ate the goa l s o fse ntenci ng wh en appli ed to defe nd ants convi cted o nl y o fposs ess i on w ho have no hi sto ry of conta ct offenses . I n hi s senten c in g m em ora n d u m , M ar tin c i t ed st u d ies for th e g en er al p ro p os itions th at “ch il d porn ograp hy pos sessio n offen ses are not parti cul ar l y di ffi cul t to deter ” a nd that“chi l d pornog

ra p h y o f f en d er s ‘d o n otrep re se n t a h igh risk of re c id ivism
. ’ ” I n li gh t of t h ese citations , the d istri ct cou rt’s sta tem ent that i t had “no t s een a nythi n g yet that6 N o. 12

- 3154 sugge sts thatther e’ s a dequ ate tr eat m ent for that” l eave s us d o u b t fu lth a tth e c o u r tc o n s i d e r e d Ma r t i n ’ s a r g um ent. A nd al though we have h eld t h at i t i s har m l ess er r o rf o ra di st r i ctc o ur t to pa ss o ve ra no nfr i vo l o us ar gu m en t th ata se n te n c in g g u id elin e is inv alid , see U nite d S ta te s v. A guilar- H uer ta , 57 6 F
. 3d 365, 36 7- 68 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( no tingtha t va l i di tyi s an i ss ue o fl aw a nd the a rgum ent ca n be m ade on appeal ) , M ar ti n did not ar gu e th atth e c h ild -p or n og ra p h y g u id elin es sh ou ld nev erbe appli ed. Rather, he ar gued that they produce di spr o po r ti o na te l y l o ngs en te nc es f o rc hi l d- po r no g r aphy p ossess ors, li ke him self, w ith no h istory ofcont act offen se s. Cf

. id
. ( “[ W ] e do not thi nk a j ud ge is re q u i re d to consi der, nota nonfri vol ous a rgum ent that agui del i n e p ro du ces an unsound sentence in the parti cul ar ci rcum sta nces ofth e ca se, but an ar gum ent that agui delin e is u n w or th y of ap p lica tio n in an y ca se b e c a u s e it w as p rom ulgate d w ithou t ad eq ua te d eliberat ion.”)
. Forco m ple teness, we bri efl y a dd re ss M ar ti n’s r em aining p roced ura l argu m en ts. First, the d istri ct cou rt su ff ici en tly exp laine d i ts reason s for rej ectin g M artin’s co nt en ti o n tha t he c o nt r ibut ed o nl y min i m al l y t o the total h a r m s of ch il d porn ograp hy
. A lthou gh the cou rt di d no t ex pl i ci tly s tate th at i t was r es po ndi ngt o a n a r g um ent b y M ar ti n, the cour t di scusse d the s er i ousness o f hi s o ffense, h igh l i ghting the pro f ound consequences o n the c h ild re n i nvol ved and the f act that “so ci etyhas deci ded to punish that cri m e s eve re l y” i n expla in ing i ts deci si on notto i m pose a bel ow-gui del i nes s entence . I n conte xt, we const rue these r em ar ks as a r ej ecti on o f M ar tin ’s a tt em p t t o m in im i z e t h e s er iou sn es s o f h isN o. 12

- 3154 7 offe n se . See Sc hro eder, 536 F.3d at75 5; M i randa , 5 0 5 F. 3d at 792. N ordi d the d istri ct c ourter r i n decl i ni ng to address M ar ti n’s ar gum ent t h at a be l ow-gui del i nes s entence wou l d b e n e c e s s a r y t o a v o i d u n wa r r a n t e d s e n t e n ci ng di spariti es . Thi s ar g um en t i s squa r ely f o r ec l o se d b y o ur hol ding that “[ a] se n te n c e w i thi n a pr oper l y a scer tained ra nge . . . cannotbe treat ed as unreas onabl e byr efer ence to [ §] 35 53( a) ( 6)
. ” Uni t e d S t ate s v . M at t he ws , 70 1 F
. 3d 1199 , 1205 (7t h C i r. 20 12) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bos ca r i no , 437 F. 3d 6 34, 63 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ) , and coul d ther ef or e be p as se d ov er in s ilen c e. Se eCunn i ngh am , 42 9 F
. 3d at 678. M ar ti n al so ar gues that the di str i c t c ou rtco m m i tte d p ro c ed u ra l err or by s e n te n c in g h im on th e b as is o f sp ecu lation thatchild-p ornogra p hy offen d ers are irra tio n al a n d u n d et er ra b le. B u t a lth ou gh w e h av e h eld that a di str i ct c ourt ’ s unf ounded spec u lat i on that s ex offe n d er s a re n otd et er ra b le m ay n ec es sit a t e rem an d , see U nite d S ta tes v. M iller, 601 F.3d 734 , 739-40 (7th C ir. 2010), w e hav e done so onl y where the c ou rt i m posed an abov e- gui delines s entence f orpurposes o fdeter re nce. Se e U n i t e d Sta tes v. R eibel, 688 F.3d 868 , 872 (7th C ir. 20 12 ) (“ [ I]m p or ta n tly , Re ibe l rec eiv ed a p re su m p tiv ely r ea so nabl e wi th i n- Gui del i ne s sen te nc e . . . wher ea s th e defen dan t i n M illerwas g i ve n a n abo ve - Gui del i ne s se nte n c e re qu irin g s p ec ial jus tific at ion .”). M or eo ve r, although the di str i ct c ourtexpre ssed s kepti ci sm thatse x o ffen der s ca n b e det er r ed, i t se em ed t o ha ve in mi nd gener aldeter re nc e only, gi ven i ts l ate r sta tem ent that “the ser i ousness o fthe offense and th e qu est ion of s peci fi c8 N o. 12

- 3154 dete rrencei s a l lthat ’s at w or k” in i ts choi ce o fse ntence. And fi na l l y, th e co ur t su g g es te d th at i ts vi ews on th e effi ca cyo fde terren ce di d no t r es ul t i n a l o ng ers en tence , expl ai ni ng tha t i t di d not m ea n t o sugge st that “the re’s r ec i di vi sm be y o nd wha t’ s ac co unt ed f o rin the gu id elin es .” A ccor dingly, we V ACATE M ar tin’ s se nt en ce and R EMA ND f orr ese ntenci ng.

5- 28- 13