# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 1- 34 06

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

Ken ne th P. Luck ey

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

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: Apri l 2 0, 2 01 2 Fil ed : Au gu st 17 , 20 12 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re MUR PHY, MELLOY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Ken ne th Luc ke y pl ed gu il ty to two co un ts of di st rib ut in g ch il d po rn og rap hy

ov er th e in te rn et in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) an d on e co un t of po ss es si ngch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n o f § 22 52 (a)( 4)

. The di st ric t co ur t 1 cal cu la te d

Luc ke y ’s ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge at 15 1 to 18 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t

an d se nt en ced Luc ke y to 18 0 m on th s. Luc ke y no w ap pe al s t h e se nt en ce, an d we affi rm

.

Luc ke y ’s co nv ic ti on s c a me aft er an ei gh t-year-o ld gi rl in fo rm ed he r m ot he r th at , whi le sh e w a s s p en di ng th e ni gh t wit h Luc ke y ’s da ug ht er at Luc ke y ’s ho us e, Luc ke y sh owe d he r pi ct ur es on hi s co m pu te r of na ke d pe op le an d, o n a pr io r

oc cas io n, sh owe d he r po rn og rap hi c pi ct u res an d ex po se d hi s ge ni ta ls to he r. Law

e nf or cem en t of

fic ers th en ex ecu te d a se arch warra nt at Luc ke y ’s res id en ce an d dis co ve red ch il d po rn og rap hy. A de te ct iv e in te rv ie wed Luc ke y , an d L uc ke y ad m itt ed

to po ss es si ng an d sh ari ng ch il d p or no gr ap hy as wel l as ch at ti ng on li ne wit h m in or s fo r il li ci t s ex ua l p ur

po se s.

Luc ke y ch al le ng es hi s se nt en ce, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t c ou rt pr oc ed ur al ly

erre d in th e se nt en ci n g p ro ceed in gs an d th at th e se nt en ce im po se d is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

. “ W e fir st rev ie w fo r si gn if i c a n t pr oc ed ur al erro r an d th en fo r

su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss .” Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 57 2 F.3d 44 9, 45 4 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ).

Luc ke y arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r by ne gl ect in g
to pr ov id e an ad e q u at e ba si s fo r th e se nt en ce it im po se d an d by fai li ng to ack no wled ge th at a se nt en ce m us t be “ su ffi ci en t, bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry ,” to

sa ti sf y th e pu rp os es st at ed in 18 U

. S

. C

. § 35 53 (a)( 2)

. “ In rev ie win g a se nt en ce fo r
pr oc ed ur al erro r, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s
ap pl ic at io n of th e gu id el in es de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Fra us to , 63 6 F.3 d 99 2, 99 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bar ker
, 55 6 F.3 d 68 2, 68 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )).

The Hon or ab le Dav id G r e go ry Kay s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-Pro ced ur al erro r in cl ud es “ fai li ng to cal cu la t e ( o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , tre at in g th e Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai l i n g t o co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s, or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en se nt en ce

. . . .” Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7)

. A “ di st ric t co ur t is pr es um ed to kn ow th e la w in reg ard to se nt en ci ng an d

ne ed no t reci te each fact or to be up he ld .” Uni te d St at es v. Kea ti ng , 57 9 F.3 d 89 1, 89 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Here, th e di st ric t co ur t refe ren ced § 35 53 (a) an d ex pl ic it ly an al y zed th e fact s of th e cas e wit h res pe ct to m an y of t h e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Fo r ex am pl e,
reg ard in g th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of t h e o f fen se , th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at ,
un li ke cas es whe re pe op le si m pl y vi ew ch il d po rn og rap hy, Luc ke y en ga ge d in se xu al

co nv ers at io ns wit h m in or s an d th a t t h is cas e ha d “ al l th e earm ark s of a ch il d be in g
gr oo m ed fo r th e type of vi le
, ho rri bl e co nd uc t” de pi ct ed in th e po rn og rap hi c im ag es Luc ke y po ss es se d. Fu rth erm or e, Luc ke y ’s arg um en t t ha t th e di st ric t cou rt fail ed to

reco gn iz e th at a se nt en ce m us t be “ su ffi ci en t, bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry ” is

co nt rad ic te d by th e di st ric t co ur t’s st at em en t th at it ha d st ru gg le d wit h whe th er or no t
to gi ve an ab ov e-g ui de li ne s se nt en ce bu t de te rm in ed th at “ th e gu id el in es ad eq ua te ly
ap pr oa ch a se nt en ce tha t is s uf fic ie nt bu t n ot gre at er t ha n n eces sa ry to co m pl y wit h th e p ur po se s s et for th wit hi n t he st at ut e.” Thu s, Lu ck ey ’s arg um en ts lac k m eri t.

Luc ke y al so arg ue s th at th e se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. “ W e wil l

no t rev ers e a se nt en ce as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le ab se nt a sh owi ng of ab us e of di sc ret io n by th e di st ric t co ur t.” Fra us to , 63 6 F.3d at 99 6 (qu ot in g Uni te d St at es v. Sa n- Mig ue l
, 63 4 F.3 d 47 1, 47 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )). “ W e m ay fin d an ab us e of di sc ret io n whe re th e se nt en ci ng co ur t ‘fail s to co ns id e r a r e l ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve

re c e i v e d si gn ifi can t weig ht
, gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or , or co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it s a cl ear erro r of

jud gm en t in we i g h i n g t h o s e fact or s.’” Uni te d St at es v. Moo re , 56 5 F.3 d 43 5, 43 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ko wa l
, 52 7 F.3 d 74 1, 74 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). “ W e ha ve be en cle ar th at ou r rev ie w o f th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of se nt en ces is na rro w

an d de fere nt ia l; ‘it wil l be t h e un us ua l cas e whe n we rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t

-3

-se nt en ce— whe th er wit hi n, ab ov e, or be lo w th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran ge —as

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on a b l e.’” Uni te d St at es v. Ose i , 67 9 F.3 d 74 2, 74 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Feems te r , 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 9 ) (en ba nc )). A se nt en ce wit hi n th e pr op erl y -cal cu la te d gu id el in es ran ge is pr es um pt iv el y

reas on ab le on ap pe al

. Fra us to , 63 6 F .3d at 9 97

.

Luc ke y sp eci fic al ly ass ert s t ha t t he se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le in th at th e d is tri ct co ur t fa il ed to gi ve su ffi ci en t wei gh t t o t he un reas on ab le ne ss of th e
gu id el in es ran ge , hi s lack of an y pr io r cri m in al hi st or y , hi s si gn ifi can t su pp or t from

t h e co m m un it y , hi s co m

pl ia nc e wit h th e te rm s of hi s pr et ria l rel eas e, hi s hi s t o r y o f

em pl oym en t, an d hi s hi st or y of de pr es si on

. Luc ke y m ad e t h e s e arg um en ts in hi s

se nt en ci ng m em or an du m , wh ic h th e di st r i c t co ur t in di cat ed it ha d read , o r or al ly at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. W e th eref or e pr es um e th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th es e
arg um en ts an d c o n c l u d e d th at th ey di d no t cal l fo r a se nt en ce lo wer th an th e on e im po se d. Se e Uni te d St at es v. W il co x , 66 6 F.3 d 11 54
, 11 57 ( 8 t h C i r

. 2 0 1 2)

. “ The di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to pl ace gr eat er em ph as is in th is cas e on fact or s th at fav or ed

a se nt en ce wit hi n th e ad vi so ry ran ge

. . . t ha n on o t h e r § 35 53 (a) fact or s th at m ig ht fav or a m or e le ni en t se nt en ce is a pe rm is si bl e ex erci se of th e co ns id erab le di sc ret io n

av ai la bl e to a se nt en ci ng co ur t

. . . .” Uni te d St at es v. Rue la s- Men de z , 55 6 F.3 d 65 5, 65 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s co ns id erab le di sc ret io n in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d in arri vi ng at Luc ke y ’s se nt en ce. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. Ga sa wa

y , 68 4 F .3d 80 4, 8 08 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-4

-