United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-3688

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Eric Butler

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

____________ 

Submitted: November 15, 2021

Filed: March 3, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Eric Butler was convicted of using a facility of interstate commerce to attempt 

to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). 

The district court1 sentenced Butler to a 135-month term of imprisonment to be 

1

The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Arkansas.
-2- 

followed by a 20-year term of supervised release. One of his special conditions of 

supervised release requires Butler to submit to periodic polygraph testing at the 

discretion of the probation officer to ensure Butler is complying with the supervision 

conditions and treatment program. Butler appeals, claiming the sentence is 

substantively unreasonable and the polygraph testing condition involves a greater 

deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary.

In September 2019, Butler responded to a Craigslist advertisement from a 

purported 13-year-old-girl in town for a couple days and looking for someone to 

show her around. The post was part of an undercover online child exploitation sting

operation that took place during the Bikes, Blues, and BBQ motorcycle rally held

annually in Northwest Arkansas. When Butler arrived at the pre-arranged meeting 

location for the purpose of engaging in a sexual encounter with the 13-year-old, law 

enforcement arrested him. Butler gave a false name to the officers. At the 

sentencing hearing, the district court noted Butler’s history of using false identities 

to facilitate crimes. Butler’s advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 120 to 150 

months, based upon a total offense level of 27 and criminal history category V. After 

considering all of the aggravating and mitigating circumstances that had been 

presented, the district court sentenced Butler to a within-Guidelines term of 135 

months’ imprisonment. The mid-range sentence was due to the court’s substantial

concern about public safety, both in terms of the likelihood that Butler will reoffend 

and his inability to be deterred.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) 

(citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). The district court’s decision 

to assign greater weight to some aggravating factors than to mitigating factors is 

“well within its wide sentencing latitude.” United States v. Pickar, 666 F.3d 1167, 

1169 (8th Cir. 2012). Because we presume a term of imprisonment within the 

advisory Guidelines range is reasonable, United States v. Mitchell, 2 F.4th 786, 790 

(8th Cir. 2021), and Butler has not rebutted the presumption or otherwise shown the 

district improperly weighed the sentencing factors, we find no abuse of discretion.
-3- 

Butler also contends in a supplemental brief that a 20-year term of supervised 

release, despite being statutorily authorized, is substantively unreasonable. See

Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 589 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 762, 766-67 (2020) 

(explaining that a defendant need only advocate for a shorter sentence to preserve

substantive reasonableness challenge to the sentence). Butler claims that the district 

court recognized but did not properly weigh mitigating factors and erred by deciding 

not to vary upward on the term of imprisonment and instead imposing a longer 

period of supervised release. The longer period of supervised release was in 

reference to what the district court might otherwise have ordered or had ordered in 

other similar cases. A number of factors, including the nature of the instant offense, 

Butler’s prior convictions for stalking and domestic assault, Butler’s history of 

noncompliance while on probation resulting in at least four revocations, and Butler’s 

long-standing mental health issues, strongly suggest the district court was reasonable 

in determining that a substantial period of oversight following completion of his 

prison term was consistent with the sentencing goals in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The 

district court acted well within its sentencing discretion and did not impose a 

substantively unreasonable term of supervised release. See United States v. Lowry, 

595 F.3d 863, 867 (8th Cir. 2010) (affirming 30-year term of supervision following 

conviction for failing to register as a sex offender when defendant had a history of 

registration violations).

We review the conditions of supervised release imposed by the district court 

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Smith, 960 F.3d 1107, 1109 (8th Cir. 2020) 

(citation omitted). A district court may impose a supervised release condition if it: 

(1) is reasonably related to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; (2) involves no greater 

deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary for the purposes in 18 U.S.C. § 

3553(a); and (3) is consistent with any pertinent policy statements by the Sentencing 

Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). We have determined that “[p]olygraph testing 

supports the Sentencing Commission’s policy that sex offenders participate in a 

program for treatment and monitoring,” Smith, 960 F.3d at 1110, and that a 

defendant’s lack of candor is an appropriate consideration when imposing a 

polygraph requirement during the period of supervision, United States v. Newell, 
-4- 

915 F.3d 587, 590-91 (8th Cir. 2019). Here, the district court noted Butler’s 

“demonstrable history of lying, cheating, and stealing.” Given the nature of the 

offense combined with Butler’s documented history of lying, the district court did 

not abuse its discretion in imposing the polygraph testing condition.

We affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________