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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 26 80

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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 se ph Tho r Perk in s

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 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__

__ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 5, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 19 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SHEPHERD, ERICKS ON, and KOBES, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Jo se ph Tho r Perk in s pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of pr od uc i n g ch il d

po rn og rap hy in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a). The di st ric t co ur t sen te nc ed hi m 1

to 33 6 m on th s in pr is on , a 24 -m on th do wnwar d v a r i a n c e fro m th e reco m m en de d
Gui de li ne s ran ge

. In ad di ti on to th e st an da rd $1 00 sp e ci al as se ss m en t, th e co ur t

The Hon or ab le Jo an N. Eric ks en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.im

po se d a $5 ,00 0 m an da to ry sp eci al ass es sm en t p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 30 14

. On

ap pe al
, Perk in s ch a ll en ge s th e reas on ab le ne ss of hi s se nt en ce an d th e sp eci al

as se ss m en t. Afte r care fu l rev ie w of th e reco rd
, we f i n d n o a b us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d S ta te s v . Sta rr, 5 33 F.3d 98 5, 1 00 3 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ), an d we a ffi rm

.

I.

Perk in s agre es th at th e di st ric t cou rt cor rect ly de te rm in ed th at th e Gui de li ne s

ran ge fo r hi s of

fen se be ga n, an d en de d, at th e st at ut or y m ax im um of 36 0 m on th s. Nor
do es he di sp ut e t h e s e n t e nc in g en ha nc em en ts he rece iv ed fo r th e vi ct im s’ a ge s, hi s

se xu al co nt act wit h th em du rin g th e of fen se , th e nu m

be r of vi ct im s, an d hi s pa st se x of fen se s. Perk in s fu rth er ac k n owl ed ge s th at th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d a 24 -m on th
do wnwar d va ria nc e to cred it hi s gu il ty pl ea th at sp ared vi ct im s fro m en du rin g a tri al

.

Alt ho ug h th e reco m

m en de d se nt en ce was at th e st at ut or y m ax im um , P erk in s cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly erre d by reject in g hi s req ue st fo r a se nt en ce
at th e st at ut or y m in im

um by fai li ng to m ean in gf ul ly co ns id er hi s m it ig at io n arg um en t

an d ex pl ai n it s reas on in g. He al so a s s e rts th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se hi s co nd uc t do es no t im pl ic at e m or e se ve re se nt en ci ng

en ha nc em en ts , b y , fo r ex am pl e, in vo lv in g y ou ng er vi ct im s, ab us in g a sp eci al
rel at io ns hi p, o r wid el y

di st rib ut in g t he im ag es

.

At se nt en ci ng , a di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di s c r e t i o n if it “ fai ls to 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
, gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht

to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or , o r c o n s i d e rs on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t

co m m it s a c l e a r e r ro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Mer rel l, 84 2 F.3 d 57 7, 58 5 (8 t h C i r

. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W at so n, 48 0
F.3 d 11 75 ,11 77 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). The di st ric t co ur t “ is no t req ui red t o r e c i t e th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s m ech an ic al ly or to m ak e sp eci fic fin di ng s on th e reco rd ab ou t each
fact or .” Id

. at 58 4 (q uo ta ti on s om it te d)

. Nor do es ev ery “ arg um en t ad va n c e d by a

-2

-de fen da nt req ui re[] a sp eci fic rejo in de r.” Uni te d St at es v. Mo rri s, 91 8 F.3 d 59 5, 59 7

(8 th Ci r. 20 19 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Grey , 5 33 F.3 d 94 2, 94 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )).
A co ur t ne ed on ly ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e reas on s fo r th e se nt en ce to pe rm it ap pe ll at e

rev ie w. Unit ed Sta te s v . Feem st er, 5 72 F.3d 45 5, 4 61 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (en ba nc ).

In rev ie win g th e reas on ab le ne ss of a se n t e nc e, “ whe n th e bo tt om of th e
gu id el in es ran ge is [at or ] a b o ve th e st at ut or y m ax im um , th e st at ut or y m ax im um

se nt en ce is pr es um ed reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Sh afer
, 43 8 F.3 d 12 25
, 12 27 (8 th
Ci r. 20 06 ). I f t h e c o ur t im po se s a se nt en ce be lo w th e ran ge su gg es te d by th e
gu id el in es , “ it is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s d i s c ret io n in no t

va ry in g do wnwar d st il l fu rth er.” Uni te d St at es v. W or th ey , 71 6 F.3 d 11 07
, 11 16 (8 th
Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Spe nc er, 7 00 F.3d 31 7, 3 22 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2) ).

The se nt en ci ng tra ns cri pt sh ows th at Perk in s’s pu ni sh m en t is gr ou nd ed in th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. It ex pl ai ne d th at Perk in s was co nv ic te d of “ on e of th e m os t se rio us of fen se s.” The of

fen se co nd uc t was “ no t ju s t p or no gr ap hy bu t act ua ll y be in g a
pr ed at or to act ua l ch il dr en ” an d th at he “ di s r e g a r d [ e d] th e li ve s of th os e ch il dr en .”
The co ur t al so co ns id ered th e ne ed fo r gr eat er de te rren ce in li gh t of Perk in s’ cri m in al
hi st or y be cau se he ha d co nt in ue d “t o r u i n th e li ve s of th es e ch il dr en .” Thu s, th e

se nt en ci ng co ll o q u y r efl ect s “ su bs ta nt ia l in si gh t in to th e reas on s fo r [th e co ur t’s]
de te rm in at io n” as ou r pr eced en t req ui res

. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 46 3 (q uo ti ng Uni te d
St at es v. Kan e, 55 2 F .3d 74 8, 7 56 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

W e al so fin d no erro r wit h th e di s t r i c t co ur t’s al le ge d fai lu re to co ns id er th e ab se nc e of ot he r, m or e se ve re se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts

. Perk in s’s co nd uc t was

se rio us en ou gh

. He do es no t di sp ut e th at hi s con du ct m eri te d add in g ten ad di ti on al
of fen se le ve ls an d ev en wit ho ut acco un ti ng fo r hi s cri m in al hi st or y , hi s Gui de li ne s

ran ge be ga n an d en de d wit h th e st at ut or y m ax im um

. Thi s al on e is su ffi ci en t to reject
hi s req ue st to be se nt en ced at th e st at ut or y m in im um

. Sh afer
, 43 8 F.3 d at 12 27

. The

co ur t rejecte d hi s pri m ary m it ig at io n arg um en t st at in g th at “ [t]reat m en t m ay or m ay

no t wo rk ,” bu t i t was un ne ces sa ry to ad dr es s fa ct s t ha t d id no t ap pl y

.

-3

-Perk in s al so cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sc us si on of hi s se xu al act iv it y

wit h m in or s sh ows “ th e es se nc e of hi s cu lp ab il it y ” is st at ut or y rap e, an d as su ch
, hi s
pu ni sh m en t sh ou ld refl ect th at le ss er cu lp ab il it y

. W e fla tl y reject th is arg um en t. The 2 pl ea ag reem en t sh ows Perk in s co nf es se d to pr od uc in g ch il d po rn og rap hy “ us [in g] hi s So ny di gi ta l cam era an d Sam su ng Gala xy cel lu la r te le ph on e to pr od uc e hu nd red s of
im ag es an d vi de os of th e m in or vi ct im s en ga ge s in se xu al act s.” On to p of th at , h e

“ en co ur ag ed m in or s to m eet hi m in pe rs on to en ga ge in se xu al act s wit h [h im ] an d so
t h at [h e] co ul d ph ot og rap h th e m in or s en ga ge d in se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t.” Th e di st ric t co ur t m erel y fu lfi ll ed it s du ty to di sc us s th e ag gr av at in g fact or s th at su pp li ed
th e ba si s fo r it s de ci si on t o en ha nc e hi s se nt en ce. The refo re, we fin d no erro r in

ex pl ai ni ng th at Perk in s ha d gr eat er cu lp ab il it y be cau se in ad di ti on to pr od uc in g ch il d

po rn og rap hy he al so m ol es te d c hi ld ren

.

II.

W e al so ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err by im po si ng th e $5 ,00 0

sp eci al as se ss m en t. Uni te d St at es v

. Kell ey , 86 1 F.3 d 79 0, 80 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ).
Perk in s i s co rrec t th at on ly a “ no n- in di ge nt pe rs on ” is el ig ib le fo r th e as se ss m en t.
See 18 U.S.C. § 30 14 (“ th e co ur t sh al l as se ss an am ou nt of $5

, 00 0 on an y no nin di ge nt pe rs on ”). W he n det erm in in g a de fen da nt ’s in di ge nc y st at us un de r § 3 01 4,

a co ur t sh ou ld co ns id er “ bo th a de fen da nt ’s cu rren t fin an ci al si tu at io n an d hi s ab il it y
to pa y in th e fu tu re.” Kell ey , 86 1 F.3 d at 80 1. At s e n t e n c i n g , th e co ur t weig he d
Perk in s’ ab il it y to pa y , no ti ng th at ha lf of th e as se ss m en t co ul d be pa id by hi s pr is on
wag es

. Alt ho ug h he no w as se rts th at hi s wor k hi st or y is “ m od es t an d sp ot ty, at be st ,”
th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d rel y on Perk in s to ut in g hi s “ st ro ng wor k hi st or y ” an d th e
pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t’s fin di ng s on hi s pa st wag es

. Add it io na ll y , Perk in s bo re th e bu rd en to pr ov e he co ul d no t pa y th e as se ss m en t, a bu rd en no do ub t hi nd ered

Pl ai n erro r rev ie w g e ne ral ly ap pl ie s be cau se Perk in s fai le d to m ak e th is 2
arg um en t to th e di st ric t co ur t. See Uni te d St at es v. Kay
, 71 7 F.3 d 65 9, 66 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Bec au se we fin d th e co ur t di d no t err, he can no t pr ev ai l un de r ei th er th e pl ai n

or cle ar er ro r st an da rd s.

-4

-by hi s fai lu re to pro vi de a fin an ci al di sc lo su re rep or t. Uni te d St at es v. All m on , 50 0

F.3 d 8 00 , 80 8 (8 th Cir . 20 07 ).

Perk in s cl ai m s th at be cau se th e co ur t fo un d he was un ab le to pa y th e m in im um $5 0,0 00 fin e it co ul d no t im po se th e $5 ,00 0 as se ss m en t. The di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t fin di ng th at Perk in s co ul d no t pa y a fin e wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. Our pr eced en t ho ld s th at “ [i]t is in co rrec t fo r a co ur t to im po se

a fin e th at th e de fen da nt ha s li tt le ch an ce of pa y in g.” Uni te d St at es v. Bern dt
, 86 F.3 d
80 3, 80 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ). Alt ho ug h th e sa m e in di ge nc y st an da rd ap pl ie s, th e am ou nt of th e fin e is a fact or th at ch an ge s th e an al y si s

. We t h eref or e reject Perk in s’s

arg um en t th at hi s in ab il it y to pa y a fin e te n ti m es la rg er th an th e as se ss m en t req ui res fin di ng th at he co ul d n ot pa y th e as se ss m en t.

* * *

Perk in s’s s en te nc e an d s pe ci al ass es sm en t ar e aff irmed.

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

-5

-