# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 2- 10 07

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Don na Mary Zaun er

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: Ju ne 15 , 20 12
Fil ed : Au gu st 16 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, BRIGHT, an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

MURP HY, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Don na Mar y Zau ne r pl ed gu il ty to produc tio n of ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n

of 18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a) an d (e) fo r ph ot og rap hs sh e to ok of he r y ou ng da u g h t e r s a t

ag es si x an d two

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Zau ne r to 21 6 m on th s, de pa rti ng an d 1

The Hon or ab le Ann D. Mo nt go m ery, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t he 1

Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.va ry in g do wnwar d fro m Zau ne r's g u i de li ne se nt en ce of 36 0 m on th s. Zau ne r

ch al le ng es he r se nt en ce as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . W e aff

irm.

In earl y Sep te m

be r 20 10

, Zau n e r co nt act ed Alec Tafo ll a on an in te rn et

cl eari ng ho us e fo r rid es ha res an d m ad e arra ng em en ts fo r hi m to dr iv e he r an d he r two

da ug h t ers , H.H. an d B.Z., fro m Las Veg as , Nev ad a to he r pa ren ts ' ho m e in up st at e

New Yor k. H.H. was two y ears ol d a nd B.Z. was s ix y ears ol d at th e ti m e. Tafo ll a

an d Zau ne r m ai nt ai ne d co nt act aft er he dr op pe d th em of f in New Yor k, an d a few

week s la te r Zau ne r ha d as k e d Tafo ll a to dr iv e he r an d he r da ug ht ers to W in on a,

Mi nn es ot a to li ve wit h Alan Lig ht

, a m an sh e ha d m et on th e in te rn et

. Sev eral week s

la te r Zau ne r in fo rm ed Ta f o l l a th at th e rel at io ns hi p was no t wor ki ng

. He dr ov e to

W in on a to he lp he r m ov e o ut of Li gh t's res id en ce.

W he n Lig ht ret ur ne d ho m e an d real iz ed th at Zau ne r ha d le ft wit h he r da ug ht ers
whi le he was away, he ch eck ed hi s co m pu te r's in te rn et hi st o r y t o try to de te rm in e
whe r e s h e h a d go ne

. He sp ot te d an em ai l acco un t he di d no t reco gn iz e an d whi ch

was la te r de te rm in ed to be lo ng to Tafo ll a. Lig ht co nt act ed th e W in on a po li ce
de pa rtment aft er di sc ov eri ng th at po rn og rap hi c im ag es of Zau ne r's ch il dr en ha d be en

se nt to th at acco un t.

Po li c e l oc at ed Tafo ll a an d Zau ne r in a lo cal m ot el

. Zau ne r was in te rv ie wed

an d e x p l a i n ed th at du rin g on e of th e tri ps Tafo ll a ha d di sc us se d watc hi ng ch il d

po rn og rap hy an d th at he ha d to ld he r a pr io r fia nc é ha d le t hi m ru b hi s pe ni s ag ai ns t

he r fiv e y ear ol d da ug ht er's va gi na

. Zau ne r ex pl ai ne d th at Ta f o l l a h ad req ue st ed
pi ct ur es of h er d au gh te rs an d wo ul d sp eci fy th e ph ot og rap hs he wan te d he r to sen d

hi m

. Zau ne r al so tu rn ed ov er her cell ph on e whi ch co nt ai ne d sev eral im ag es of he r
da ug ht ers

.

Law en fo rcem en t of

fic ers rev ie wed te xt an d em ai l m es sa ge s ex ch an ge d by

Zau ne r an d Tafo ll a be twee n Sep te m be r 11 an d Octo be r 5, 20 10

. The y were no t ab le

-2

-to reco ve r al l co m m un ic at io ns bu t di sc ov ered an im ag e Tafo ll a ha d se nt to Zau ne r of

a fem al e ch il d wit h se m en an d th e m es sa ge , "s ho w th at to [H.H.] an d [B.Z.] an d te ll

th em th at 's wha t I wan t to do ." Ta f o l l a s e n t an ot he r em ai l wit h a vi de o of a m an

ha vi ng in te rco ur se wit h a m in or gi rl th at was ren am ed "m e an d [H.H.] " Zau ne r se nt

Tafo ll a a ph ot og rap h of B.Z. an d Tafo ll a res po nd ed wit h a pi ct ur e of hi s erec t pe ni s

an d th e m es sa ge "s ho w he r th is ." Zau ne r th en se nt Tafo ll a ph ot og rap hs of B.Z. an d

H.H. each na ke d f

r o m t h e w a i st do wn, se at ed in a ch ai r wit h th ei r le gs sp read to

ex po se th ei r ge ni ta ls

. Nex t sh e se nt a ph ot og rap h in whi ch sh e is ho ld in g B.Z. who se
le gs are ap art . Zaun er i s s pr ead in g B .Z.'s la bi a wit h her ha nd to ex po se he r va gi na

. Tafo ll a res po nd ed , "I wan t you t o s ho w th is pi c y ou to ok to [H.H.] ."

W he n qu es ti on ed by po li c e , Za u ne r fir st sa id th at Tafo ll a ha d ph y si cal ly

th reat en ed he r du rin g th e tri p to W in on a, de m an di ng pi ct ur es of he r da ug ht ers

. Sh e

la te r ack no wled ge d th at th is st at em en t was fal se an d th at Tafo ll a ha d ne ve r th reat en ed

he r. Her ch il dr en were pl aced in fo st er care in Mi n n es ot a an d ev en tu al ly rel oc at ed

to Pen ns y lv an ia to li ve wit h a rel at iv e.

The go ve rn m en t is su ed a fo ur co un t in di ct m en t ag ai ns t Zau ne r fo r pr od uc ti on

an d di st rib ut io n of ch il d po rn og rap hy, an d Zau ne r ag reed to pl ead gu il ty to on e co un t

of pr od uc ti on of ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 51 (a) an d (e). The

pa rti es st ip ul at ed th at Zau ne r's to ta l of fen se le ve l wou ld be 46 whi ch in cl ud ed

en ha nc em en ts fo r th e ag es of he r da ug ht ers , th e fact th at sh e i s th ei r pa ren t, he r

pa rti ci pa ti on in a pa tt ern of a ct iv it y in vo lv in g p ro hi bi te d sex ua l con du ct

, as well as

a th ree le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

. Si nc e Zau ne r ha d no cri m in al

hi st or y , sh e was in cat eg or y I whi ch cap pe d th e of fen se le ve l at 43

, l e a d i n g to a

gu id el in e se nt en ce of li fe. Bec au se th is se nt en ce ex ceed ed th e st at ut or y m ax i m um

o f 3 0 y ears th e st at ut or y m ax im um be cam e th e gu id el in e se nt en ce. See U.S.S. G

. §

5G1 .1(a ). The go ve rn m en t ag reed to m ov e fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re fo r su bs ta nt ia l

as si st an ce un de r U.S.S.G. § 5 K1.1 if Zau ne r co op erat ed wit h Tafol la 's pro se cu ti on

.

-3

-The di st ric t cou rt ord ered a ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on be fo re sen te nc in g. The

ev al u a ti on rev eal ed th at Zau ne r's in te ll ect ua l fu nc ti on in g m eas ur ed ne ar th e le ve l

co ns id ered to be m en ta ll y ret ard ed

, th at sh e ha d gro wn up in an ab us iv e h ou se ho ld

,

an d h ad be en se xu al ly as sa ul te d a s a m in or . The p sycho lo gi st rep or te d t ha t Zau ne r

ha s a de ep se at ed ne ed fo r va li da ti on an d affe ct io n an d de fers de ci si on s to ot he rs

. He

co nc lu de d th at Tafo ll a "t arg et ed

, gr oo m ed

, an d m an ip ul at ed Ms

. Zau ne r to sa ti sf y hi s

own pr ur ie nt in te res ts

. . . . Ms . Za un er was de sp erat e to be lo ve d a n d a c c e p t e d h is

ve rs io n o f wha t was rig ht an d wro ng ."

Th e go ve rn m en t su bm it te d a § 5K1 .1 m ot io n fo r su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce bu t

arg ue d at se nt en ci ng th at an y de p a r t u r e sh ou ld be m in im al in li gh t of th e fact th at

Zau ne r ha d su pp li ed it wit h m is in fo rm at io n an d th e "s ev ere an d te rri bl e se t of fact s"

un de rlyin g th e co nv ic ti on

. The go ve rn m en t al so so ug ht res ti tu ti on in th e am ou nt of

$1 0,0 00 for each ch il d.

The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Zau ne r to 21 6 m on th s an d 15 y ears of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e an d or de red $2 0,0 00 in res ti tu ti on owe d joi nt ly an d se v e r a l l y wit h Tafo ll a.

Thi s se nt en ce rep res en te d a 40 % red uc ti on fro m Zau ne r's gu id el in e se nt en ce. The

co ur t d es cri be d t he cas e as "v ery sa d . . . in m an y , m an y way s" an d s ta te d

The re[] [are ] so m e ve ry ba si c ne ed s th at ev ery ch il d ha s a rig ht to ex pe ct

an d on e of th os e is th at th ei r m ot he r wil l pr ot ect th em fro m ha rm

. And

s a y w h a t y ou wil l ab ou t Mr. Tafo ll a[,] [y ]ou co ul d ha ve st op pe d th is

w h o l e t h i n g

. He was a di st an ce fro m y ou

. The re were no th reat s in vo lv ed he re and y ou r ch il dr en ha d a rig ht to rel y up on y ou to pro te ct th em

. . . . The re are ve ry few cas es whe re a m ot he r is ch arg ed wit h

pa rt i c i p a t in g in po rn og rap hy in qu it e th e way y ou ha ve an d I ha ve to ho ld y ou acco un ta bl e fo r th at un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces

.

Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t an no un ced it s se nt en ce, Zau ne r pr ot es te d, sa y in g, "I'm

no t a se x of

fen de r

. . . . [My da ug ht ers ] were ne ve r ha rm ed whe n I to ok th e pi ct ur es

.

-4

-The y weren 't ev en aware th at I to ok th e pi ct ur es

. The y were no t." The di st ric t co ur t

res po nd ed th at "y ou 're t he ir m ot he r. They had a ri gh t t o tru st y ou an d p ro te ct th em

fro m th is ."

O n ap pe al Zau ne r arg ue s th at he r se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab l e i n

li gh t of he r hi st or y of tra um a, bo rd erl i n e i n t e ll ect ua l fu nc ti on in g, la ck of cri m in al

hi st or y , and rel at iv e cu lp ab il it y . The g ov ern m en t ar gu es th at we can no t re vi ew th e

reas on ab le ne ss of Zau ne r's se nt en ce be cau se we wou ld in ef f e c t b e r ev ie win g th e

ex te nt of th e di st ric t co ur t's do wnwar d de pa rtu re un de r § 5K1 .1. See Uni te d St at es v.

Bi ll ue , 57 6 F.3 d 89 8, 90 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) ("Ab se nt an al le ga ti on th at th e di st ric t co ur t

was m ot iv at ed by an un co ns ti tu ti on al m ot iv e in arri vi ng at it s do wnwar d dep art ur e,

w e m ay no t rev ie w th e ex te nt of [s uc h] a do wnwar d de pa rtu re in th e de fe n d a n t ' s

fav or ." (ci ta ti on om it te d) ).

The di st ric t co ur t m ad e cl ear th at it s red uc ti on was ba se d on bo th th e § 5K1 .1

m ot io n an d it s co ns id erat io n of th e se nt en ci ng fact or s li st ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a).

Bec au se th e red uc t i o n i n c lu de d a va ria nc e as well as a de pa rtu re, we rev ie w th e

su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n, Gall v.
Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 51 (2 00 7)

, an d "jud ge th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of

th e se nt en ce wit h refe ren ce to th e fact or s en um erat ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)." Uni te d

St at es v. W ah ls tro m , 58 8 F.3 d 53 8, 54 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The di st ric t co ur t ha s "wi de

la ti tu de to weig h th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s . . . in de te rm in in g a n a pp ro pr ia te sen te nc e."

Uni te d St at es v. Bri dg es , 56 9 F.3 d 37 4, 37 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W he re as he re th e
ad vi so ry gu id el in e se nt en ce is ab ov e 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. Lazar sk i, 56 0 F.3 d 73 1, 73 3 (8 th

Ci r. 20 09 ). W he n a di st ric t co ur t va rie s do wnwar d fro m a pr es um pt iv el y reas on ab le

gu id el in e se nt en ce, "i t is nea rly in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in

no t v arying do wnwar d s ti ll fur th er." Laz ars ki , 56 0 F .3d at 7 33

.

-5

-The di st ric t co ur t m ad e cl ear at se nt en ci ng th at it was aware of th e m it ig at in g

in fo rm at io n co nt ai ne d in Zau ne r's ps y ch ol og ic al rep ort an d he r arg um en t th at sh e was
le ss cu lp ab le th an Tafo ll a, who ha d be en se nt en ced to 19 2 m on th s. It al so ex pr es se d

co nc ern th at Zau ne r "jus t do [es ]n't

. . . ge t it [th at ] [t]hi s is a ve ry , ve ry se rio us

of fen se ." The di st ric t co ur t as ke d ab ou t th e well be in g of th e c hi ld ren , rece iv ed a
vi ct im im pa ct st at em en t fro m W in on a Co un ty Pro te ct iv e Serv ic es , an d was pr es en te d

wit h t he go ve rn m en t's arg um en t t ha t

[Defe ns e co un se l] refe ren ced th at th e ch il dr en ho pe fu ll y di dn 't or do n't

ap pr eci at e wha t was do ne to th em at th e ti m e. The re wil l c o m e a ti m e whe n th ey 'll ap pr e c i a te wha t ha pp en ed to th em an d why th ei r m ot he r

was ta ke n fro m th em

. . . . [The y are] go in g to ha ve to face co un se li ng

an d t reat m en t an d o ve rco m e th at hu rd le . It's no t o ve r fo r th e ch il dr en

.

The co ur t co nc lu de d th at th e se nt en ce was "s ig ni fic an t pu ni sh m en t wit ho ut m or e th an

ne ces sa ry to acco m pl is h" th e o bjec ti ve s o f § 3 55 3( a).

Thi s reco rd de m on st rat es th at th e di st ric t co ur t care fu ll y co ns id ered th e §

35 53 (a) fact or s in l i g h t of th e m it ig at in g ev id en ce pr es en te d an d th e gr av it y of th e

of fen se

. It im

po se d a se nt en ce well be lo w th e gu id el in e se nt en ce an d 3 y ears ab ov e

th e st at ut or y m in i mu m

. 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
di sc ret io n a nd th at Zaun er's sen te nc e is no t u nr eas on ab le

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

BRIGHT, Ci rcu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g.

As an ap pe ll at e co ur t, we owe su bs ta nt ia l de fere nc e to th e se nt en ci ng de ci si on s

of th e di st ric t co ur t. Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 5 52 U.S. 3 8, 51 –5 2 (2 00 7)

. In ad d i t i o n,

as th e m ajor it y no te s, ou r pr eced en t has a di ffi cu lt ti m e im ag in in g any sc en ari o th at

co ul d warra nt rev ers al of a do wnwar d de pa rtu re. Uni te d St at es v. La za rs ki

, 56 0 F.3 d

-6

-73 1, 7 3 3 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s ta ti ng “ it is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e [d is tri ct ] co ur t

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n i n n o t va ry in g do wnwar d st il l fu rth er” fro m a pr es um pt iv el y

reas on ab le gu id el in e se nt en ce). I co nc ur in th is cas e du e to th e in st it ut io na l di sc ret io n

owe d th e di st ric t c o u r t

. Howev er, I writ e se pa rat el y to no te th e pr ob le m s wit h th e
ch il d po rn og rap hy gu id el in es an d to ex pr es s m y pe rs on al di sa gr eem en t wit h th e
di st ric t co ur t’s s en te nc in g d eci si on in th is cas e.

Co ng res s de le ga te d si gn ifi can t di s cret io n to th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on to

in it i a l l y fo rm

ul at e th e gu id el in es

. Mis tr et ta v. Uni te d St at es , 48 8 U.S. 36 1, 36 7
(1 98 9)

. Su ch de le ga ti on of au th or it y was a gr eat id ea, as “ [d ]evel op in g pr op or ti on at e

pe na lt ie s fo r hu nd red s o f di ffer en t cr im es by a v irt ua ll y li m it le ss arra y of of fen de rs
is pr eci se ly th e so rt of in tri cat e, la bo r-i nt en si ve ta sk fo r whi ch de le ga ti on to an ex pe rt

bo dy is es pe ci al ly ap pr op ria te .” Id

. at 37 9. Th e C o mm is si on al so pr ov id ed “ so m e

in su la ti on fro m th e d is to rti ng pre ss ur es of po li ti cs ” an d was in po si ti on to m on it or ,
st ud y , an d rev is e th e gu id el in es ov er ti m e. Fran k O. Bo wm an , III, Th e Fai lu re of th e
Fed er al Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s: A St ru ct ur al Ana ly si s , 1 0 5 C ol um

. L. Rev

. 13 15

, 13 24 (20 05 ). 2

Howev er, in se ve ral area s of th e gu id el in es , in cl ud in g se x of fen se s, Co ng res s

ha s st ep pe d a way

fro m it s re li an ce o n t he Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on an d “ us ed a m ix

of m an da to ry m in im

um pe na lt y in crea se s an d di rect iv es to th e Co m m is si on to ch an ge

se nt en ci ng po li cy

. . . .” U.S. Sen te nc in g Co m m ’n, Fif te en Y ea rs o f G u i d el in es

Se nt en ci ng : An Ass es sme nt of How W el l th e Fed

er al Cr imi n a l J

u st ic e Sy st em is

Ach ie vi ng th e Goa ls of Se nt en ci ng Refo rm 72 –7 3 (No ve m be r 20 0 4 )

. “In th e [Pro se cu to ria l Rem ed ie s an d Oth er Too ls to End th e Exp lo it at io n of Ch il dr en Tod ay

Act (PROTECT Act) of 20 03 ], Co ng res s, fo r th e fir st ti m e si nc e th e in cep ti on of th e

Gui de li ne s ge ne ral ly are a go od id ea, bu t acco rd in g to m an y ob se rv ers , t h e 2

fed eral gu id el in es ha ve no t wor ke d ou t well in pr act ic e. Se e, e.g

. , Fran k O. Bo wm an , III, Th e Fai lu re of th e Fed er al Se nt en ci ng Gui de li ne s: A St ru ct ur al Ana ly si s , 10 5
Co lu m . L. Rev. 1 31 5 (2 00 5)

.

-7

-gu id el in es , di rect ly am en de d th e G ui de li ne s Man ua l an d de ve lo pe d un iq ue

li m it at io ns on do wnwar d de pa rtu res fro m th e gu id el in es in s e x c a s e s.” Id

. W hi le

Co ng res s’s di rect in vo lv em en t in th e gu id el in es is no t i n h e r e n t l y pr ob le m at ic

, it is

su sp ect whe n it la ck s si gn ifi can t po li cy di sc us si on an d an al y si s. Se e, e.g

. , Uni t e d

St at es v. Beie rma nn , 59 9 F. Su pp

. 2d 10 87

, 11 00 (N.D. Io wa 20 09 ) (n ot i n g “ th e

pr in ci pa l or on ly reas on gi ve n by th e Co m m is si on it se lf fo r each of th e am en dm en ts
[to th e ch il d po rn og rap hy gu id el in es ] is t h a t t h e am en dm en t was un de rta ke n

ex cl us iv el y or pr im ari ly at th e be he st of C o n g r e ss ”); se e al so Troy St ab en ow,

Deco ns tr uc ti ng

th e Myt h of Ca re

fu l S tu dy : A Pri mer

on th e Fla wed

Pro gr es si on of

th e Ch il d Po rn og ra

ph y Gui de li ne s (Ja n. 1 , 20 09 ).

Dis tri ct co ur ts are al so no w free to cat eg or ic al ly di sa gr ee wit h th e gu id el in es ,
at le as t in area s whe re th ey “ ’do no t ex e mpli fy th e Co m m is si on ’s ex erci se of it s
ch arac te ris ti c in st it ut io na l ro le .’ ” Sp ea rs v. Uni te d St at es , 55 5 U.S. 26 1, 26 4 (2 00 9)
(p er cu ria m

) (q uo ti ng Ki mbr ou gh v. Uni t e d S t a t e s , 55 2 U.S. 85

, 10 9 (2 00 7) ). An

in crea si ng nu m

be r of di st ric t co ur ts ha ve ex erci se d th at di sc ret io n wit h res pe ct to th e

c h i l d po rn og rap hy g ui de li ne s. Se e, e.g

. , Beie rma nn , 5 99 F. Su pp . 2 d at 11 00 ( N

. D

. Io wa 20 09 ) (ca te go ric al ly rejecti ng U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .2 on po li cy gro un ds an d l is ti ng

cas es ); Uni te d St at es v. Pri ce , No. 09 –C R– 30 10 7, 20 12 W L 96 69 71

, at *1 1 (C.D. Ill

. Mar

. 21

, 20 12 ) (n ot in g si m il ar is su es wit h U.S.S.G. §2 G2.1 an d de pa rti ng do wnwar d

at sen te nc in g)

.

In th is area , th e gu id el in es ro ut in el y pl ace d e f en da nt s ne ar or ov er th e

st at ut or y -m ax im

um se nt en ce, el im in at in g an y m ean in gf ul di st in ct io n be twee n th e
le as t an d m os t cu lp ab le of fen de rs

. Thi s cas e is a gr eat ex am pl e. The gu id el in es cal le d

fo r Zau ne r to be se nt en ced to th irt y y ears in pr is on an d wou ld ha ve reco m m en de d a

li fe se nt en ce if th ey ha d no t be en co ns tra in ed by th e st at ut or y -m ax im um pu ni sh m en t.

Se e 18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (e). Yet lo ok in g at Zau ne r’s of fen se co nd uc t al on e, sh e do es no t

ran k am on g th e wor s t c h i l d po rn og rap hy of fen de rs de se rv in g of th e st at ut or y

m ax im um se nt en ce. Sh e was a f i r s t

- t i me of

fen de r an d he r co nd uc t di d no t tri gg er

-8

-se ve ral of th e po ss ib le en ha nc em en ts un de r U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .1. The re is al so no th in g

in th e reco rd to in di cat e th e pi ct ur es were di st rib ut ed be y on d th os e pe op le di rect ly

in vo lv ed in th e of

fen se co nd uc t. On th e fact s of th i s cas e, I do no t be li ev e an y

reas on ab le jud ge wou ld ha ve se nt en ced Zau ne r to th e reco m m en de d se nt en ce un de r

th e g u i d e l in es

. The di st ric t co ur t ap pa ren tl y ag reed

, ex erci si ng it s pr ero ga ti ve to

de pa rt do wnwar d to se nt en ce Zau ne r to ei gh te en y ears in pr is on —t hr ee y ears ab ov e

th e m an da to ry

m in im um . And wher e th e g ui de li ne s ar e ou t o f li ne an d i nc reas in gl y
di sr eg ard ed by se nt en ci ng jud ge s, th e m ere fact of a do wnwar d de pa rtu re sh ou ld no t

in su la te th e di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ce fro m an y type of m ean in gf ul rev ie w. In ad di ti on , i n c a s es su ch as th is

, whe re th e gu id el in es ob vi ou sl y do no t fit

, a se nt en ci n g ju d g e
sh ou ld gi ve care fu l as se ss m en t to th e se nt en ci ng req ui rem en ts of § 35 53 (a) an d st at e

th e jud ge ’s reas on s an d c on cl us io ns on th e rec or d.

I al so writ e se pa rat el y be cau se I pe rs on al ly be li ev e th e se nt en ce was ex ces si ve

. As th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s hi gh li gh te d s e v e r a l t i m es : “ ‘It ha s be en un ifo rm an d

co ns ta nt in th e fed eral jud ic ia l tra di ti on fo r th e se nt en ci ng jud ge to co ns id er ev ery

co nv ic te d pe rs on a s a n i n d i v id ua l an d ev ery cas e as a un iq ue st ud y in th e hu m an

fai li ng s th at so m et im es m it ig at e, so m et im es m ag ni fy

, th e cri m e an d th e pu ni sh m en t

to en su e.’ “ Pep

pe r v. Uni te d St at es , 13 1 S. Ct

. 12 29

, 12 39 –4 0 (2 01 1) (q uo ti ng Ko on

v

. U ni te d St at es
, 51 8 U.S. 8 1, 11 3 (1 99 6) ). And in a si tu at io n whe re th e gu id e l i n e s

no lo ng er p ro vi de an y

gu id an ce, i t i s i nc um

be nt on th e se nt en ci ng jud ge to pr ov id e

a th or ou gh di sc us si on of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d ho w th ey rel a t e t o t h e u lt im at e

se nt en ci ng de ci si on

. Co ns id eri ng al l of th e fact s of th is cas e in li gh t of th e § 35 53 (a)

fact or s, I d o n ot be li ev e an y sen te nc e o ve r th e m an da to ry m in im um was warran te d.

Fi rs t, Zau ne r’s tro ub le d hi st or y an d di m in is he d m en ta l cap aci ty were no t gi ve n

su ffi ci en t weig ht by th e di st ric t co ur t. Her ba ck gr ou nd an d ps y ch ol og ic al is su es were

w e l l do cu m en te d by Dr. Erne st Bo swe ll

, th e ps y ch ol og is t who in te rv ie wed Zau ne r

in pr ep arat io n of se nt en ci ng

. The ps y ch ol og is t fo un d Zau ne r ex hi bi te d a pa tt ern of

“ ge ne ral pa ss iv it y in de al in g wit h th e wor ld aro un d he r” an d “ [f]rom an earl y ag e sh e

-9

-ha s de ferr ed de ci si on s to ot he rs aro un d he r.” He al so fo un d “ a hi st or y of si gn ifi can t

f a mi l y dysfu nc ti on , earl y on se t of al co ho l us e, rap e an d im pa ire d in te ll ect ua l

ab il it ie s.” Dr. Bo swe ll al so te st ed Zau ne r’s in te ll ect ua l fu nc ti on an d sh e sc or ed in th e

fo ur th pe rcen ti le of ov eral l co gn it iv e ab il it y —”[ s]tat ed di ffer en tl y , 96 % of ad u l ts

ha ve su pe rio r in te ll ect ua l fu nc ti on in g t o M s. Zau ne r.”

Zau ne r’s ba ck g r ou nd is es pe ci al ly im po rta nt in li gh t of Dr. Bo swe ll ’s

co nc lu si on s ab ou t Tafo ll a, who pa rti ci pa te d in th e cri m e. W hi le Dr. Bo swe ll was no t

ab le to in te rv ie w Tafo ll a, he ha d acces s to Tafo ll a’s an d Zaun er’s stat em en ts to la w

en fo rcem en t an d ot he r po li ce rep or ts fro m th e in ve st ig at io n. Dr. Bo swe ll fo un d th at

“ th e ps y ch ol og ic al ev id en ce su gg es ts th at Tafo ll a is a pa th ol og ic al i n d iv id ua l who

ta rget ed

, gr oo m ed an d m an ip ul at ed Ms

. Zau ne r vi a a se rie s of or ch es tra te d st at em en ts

an d be ha vi or s to en ga ge in act iv it ie s ai m ed at gr at ifi cat io n of hi s ab erra nt an d il le ga l

se xu al im pu ls es ” an d th at “ Zau ne r was no t th e in it ia to r or do m in an t in di vi du al in th e

se qu en ce o f ev en ts th at res ul te d i n t he sex ua l ex pl oi ta ti on of h er d au gh te rs .”

Gen eral ly sp eak in g, th e le a d e r o f a cri m in al act sh ou ld be pu ni sh ed m or e

se ve rel y th an th e fo ll owe rs

. Se e, e.g

. , U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (a). In th is cas e, Tafo ll a pr ey ed

up on Zau ne r, req ue st in g th e po rn og rap hi c pi ct ur es of he r ch il dr en , an d m an ip ul at in g
he r in to be li ev in g he r act io ns were acce pt ab le

. As th e pr im e act or in th is of fen se , an d

th e on e wit h th e “ ab erra nt an d il le ga l se xu al im pu ls es ,” I be li ev e he sh ou ld ha ve

rece iv ed th e st iff

er se nt en ce. In st ead

, hi s fir st vi ct im

, Zau ne r, go t th e he av ie r pe na lt y

. Ta f ol la was se nt en ced to 19 2 m on th s (1 6 y ears ) whi le Zau ne r rece iv ed two y ears

m or e. In cas es whe re th e gu id el in es real is ti cal ly sh ou ld no t ap pl y , as in th is cas e , I

su gg es t th at th e di st ric t co ur t fo cu s o n t h e st at ut or y req ui rem en ts of § 35 53 (a) an d

pa rti cu la rly th e ad m on it io n th at di st ric t co ur t “ sh al l im po se a se nt en ce su ffi ci en t, bu t

no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry , to co m pl y wit h th e pu rp os es ” of th e st at ut e. Se e 18 U.S.C.

-1 0-§ 3 5 53 (a). Thi s is a he av y se nt en ce fo r a fir st ti m e of fen de r who was le d in to t h e

of fen se by an un sc ru pu lo us pr ed at or

. Fi fte en y ears —t he m an da to ry m in im um —was

m or e th an su ffi ci en t.

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

-1 1-