## In the



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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 1080 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. P AUL R. B RADLEY, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 09 -40 06 8-0 01 -JPG

—J. Phi l G il bert, Judge

.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 5, 2010

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 13, 2010

Befo re B AUER, W I L L I A MS, an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . P au lBr adl eypl ea ded g uilty t o t r av el i ng i n i nter sta te com m er ce t o engag e in sexualco nd uct with a m in or . See 18 U .S.C . § 24 23 (b ). Th e d i s tr ict co u rtca lcul ate d a gui del i nes i m pri so nm ent r ange of57to 71 m onths, but sente nced hi m t o 240 m onths. On app eal Brad ley pri nci pal l y a rgues that hi s s entence r est s o n s pecu lati o n abo uthi s pr i o r c r i m i na lc o nduc t an d l i k e l i h o o d o fr e c i d i v i s m, an d th u s i s u n r e a s o n ab l e . We2 N o. 10

- 1080 agr ee an d vacat e the j ud gm ent a nd r em and fo r re sente nci ng.

I . B AC KGR OUND The pol i ce ar re ste d Bra dle y after spott i ng his car par k ed o n the s i de o fthe r o ad sh o r tly a fte r midn i g hta nd fi nd i ng hi m w i th T. S. , a 15- yea r- ol d b oy. Bradle y, w ho is fro m Oreg on, i ni ti al l y t ol d the pol i c e th at he was l ost and had stopped T.S

. to as k fordi re ction s, b ut l ate r he a dm i tt ed m ee tingT. S
. thr o ug h a pho ne c ha t ( th e equi va l en t o fa n Int erne t ch at r oom c o nduc te d o ve r the tel ephone)

. Bradl ey eve ntual l y l earned that T. S. was y o u n g e r th a n 1 8 b u ts t i l lt r a v e l e d t o I l l i n o i s t o me e th i m. Acco r di ngt o the pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce r, T. S
. pr o vi ded co nfl icting i nform ation d uri n g his several i nt erview s. T
. S. ass er ted thath e had been tal ki ng on M yS pace w i th “Ali ce B r a d l e y, ” w h o m h e th o u g h tw a s a 1 6

- y e a r - o l d g i r l

. He tol d the probati on o ffice r that he and A l i ce fi rs t sta rt ed tal ki ng the m onth be f or e the d efendant’s ar re st, but l ate r he r ep or ted i n hi s v i cti m - i m pact s tat em ent that h e an d A l i ce had be en co m m unica ti ng f orsi x m onths. A c c or d in g t o T .S. th ey h a d a rra n ge d to m ee t in Il lin ois ( T. S
. di d no t sa y wher e he tho ug htAl i ce w as fr o m ) , b ut o n the a ppo i nt ed nigh t B r adl eys ho wed up i ns te ad an d sa i d th a tAl i c e wa s wa i t i n ga ta mo t e l

. Atfi r s tT
. S
. ma i nta i ne d tha t he nev er w en t to the mot el, b utl at erhe sa id th at h e w a s th er e w ith B ra d ley for on e n igh t o n ly and that Br adle y had t h re at en ed to ki l lhi m i fhe di d not d o a s h e w as to ld . Th at st at em en t is at l e as t p ar tly f al se, since s ecuri ty cam er as at the m ot el r eco rdedN o. 10

- 1080 3 i m age s o fBradl ey and T.S. th e ni ght they were di sc o v er ed in t h e c ar , as w ell as th e p re vio u s n igh t. In h is las t in te rv iew , T.S. ad d ed th at B ra d ley h ad p lied h im w i th al coholbefor e for cibl y s odom izi ng hi m . The pro secu tor w ou ld l a t e r conc ed e tha t this acc ou nt of a f or cibl e r ape wa s u n derm i ned by DN A co nfi rm ati on th ats emen f o und o n a mot elb l an k etwas fr om T. S
. , who ha d de nied e n g aging in an y othe r sexu al activi ty. T
. S. unde r wenta medi ca le xa m i na ti o n afte r the o ffen se , b ut th e resu lts w ere not d isclosed by the prob ation offi cer. T. S. to l d the probati on o ffi cer that afterhi s e ncounter w i th Bradl ey he st ar ted dri nki ng heav i l y in or der t o fee lnumb a nd he l p hi m s l ee p. H e a lso sai d tha t he no l onge r fel t co m f or tabl e a round hi s f ather

. T. S. ’ s m othe r expla i ned that hi s fatherhad to l d T.S

. that“he gotwh at h e d e s er ve d , i f h e w as goin g t o d o s om et h in g like th at .” Sh e re lat ed th at T .S. h a d su ffer ed h ar as sm en t a t s c h oo l, i nc l udi nga fi g httha t r es ul te d i n a b r o k enno se . S he also e x p ressed w orry abou t T.S. ’s presen t and fut ure sexualbehav i orand the safetyo fher y oungerso n w he n ar o und h i m . T. S
. a tt en ded two s es si o ns o fc o unsel i ng, bu t h i s dete ri or ating be havi oratscho olr esul ted i n suspensi on a nd t h en pl acem ent in an al ternati ve s c ho o l

. In hi s v i cti m- i mpa c ts t a t e men t, h e de s c r ib e d a r ec ur r i ngni g ht m ar e ab o ut w ak i ngup par aly ze d, e xpr es se d fee l i ngs ha m e when i nt er ac tingwi thpe er s, a nd r ec o unt ed th e emba r r as sment an d pa i n o fg et ting tes ted a ft e r the o ffe ns e . T
. S
. a l s o s a i d h e h a d s uffe r e d “ a gr eat deal of pu bl i c hum i l i ati on” w hen a l ocal p ap er p r i n t e d d e t a i l s ab o u tth e i n c i d e n t, i nc l u d i n gh i s n a me an d p ict u re . Th at art icle is n otsy m p a th et ic t o T .S.; it4 N o. 10

- 1080 d iscloses that he m isrepres en t e d h im self as an 18-yearold on M ySp ace and im p li es th at he w as a w il lin g p a rti ci pant i n hi s deal i ngs with Bradl ey. M o t e lr e c o r ds c o nfi r med tha tBr adle y h a d b o o k e d a r o o m f o r o ne a dul t an d o ne c hi ld f o r b o ththe ni g ht he was a rre ste d and the prev i ous ni ght. A se ar ch of Brad l ey’ s co m pu ter( presum abl y o ne he bro ught with hi m to I l l i noi s) uncove re d e vi dence of tw o “chi l d pornog

ra phy” i m age s, o ne o fthem del ete d, as w el las wh at the pr obat i on officer descr ibed as tw o “se x-e ncounter sto ri es” about tee nage boy s ( Bradle y’ s ap p ella te counseld es c ribes these as “t eenag e bo y c om i ng o fag e st o r i es ”)
. Acco r di ngt o the pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce r, the compu t e r a l s o c o nt a i ne d s e v e r a l hu nd r e d i mag e s o f “a d u lt p or n og ra p h y,” “a d u lt h om os ex u al p or n og ra p h y,” an d “a d u lt m ale s in lew d p os es .” B ra d ley init ially w as ch ar ge d in s ta te co u r t, bu t h e t old the pr obat i on o ffi certhathe ha d aske d h is l aw yerto conta ct federal authori ti es and i ni ti ate thi s pro secuti on because he thought the st ate ch ar ge s were i naccurat e, he wanted the ca se re sol ved qui ckl y, and he wanted to be incarc er ate d i n a federa lpri son i n Cal i f or ni a, near hi s f am i l y. ( A fterBradl ey’ s federa lse ntenci ng he ple aded gui l ty i n sta te cour t t o agg ra vate d cri m i nalse x u al abuse. Ei g hto th ers ta te c ha r g es , i nc l udi ngc hi l d abduc ti o n, un law ful restraint, an d aggravat ed kid na p p ing, w ere d ism iss ed .) In a st ip u lat ed fac tu al b as is off er ed in supp or t o fh is gu il ty ple a t o the § 24 23(b) co unt, Bradle y a dm itt ed tr avel i ng fro m Oreg on t o I l l i noi s for the purpos e o fenga gin g in sexualco nd uct with a per sonN o. 10

- 1080 5 he kne w to be 15 yea rs o ld and usinghi s co m pu terto persuade the j uveni l e t o engag e in the sexualco nd uct. I n Bradl ey’s pre sente nce r epor t, the proba ti on o ffi cer did noti denti fy a ny adul t o r j u ve ni l e co nvi cti ons, o r even prior arrests, an d thu s asses sed no crim inal history poi nts. The pro bati on o ffi cercal cul ate d Bradle y’ s t ota l offe n se le ve l at25 w ith a c rim in al h ist or y c at eg or y of I, yi el ding a guidel i nes i m pri sonm ent r ange of 57 t o 71 m onths. U nd erU
. S. S. G. § 2 G 1. 3( a) ( 4) , hi s ba se offense l ev elwas 2 4, b utt wo l ev el s wer e adde d f o r undu l y i nflu en c in g a m in or , i d. § 2G 1.3 (b ) ( 2 ) ( B ), tw o m or e le ve ls w er e a d d ed for th e c om m iss ion of a s ex ac t, i d. § 2 G1. 3(b )(4) ( A ) , and thr ee l eve l s were subtr acte d fo r ac c ep ta n c e o f res p on sib ility , i d. § 3E1. 1( a) , ( b)

. The proba

tion officer did not ide nt ify any f acto r that w ou ld w arra nt a sent en c e abov e the gui del i nes r ange. The di str i ct cour t a dopted the pro po sed fi nd i ngs without obj ecti on fro m the parti es. A t s entencing the go vern m ent r equeste d an abo vera n ge sente nce o f87m onths. The pro secuto r ar gued that a s en te n c e w ith inth e ra n ge w ou ld n otad eq u at ely r efl ec t T. S
. ’ s su ffer i ng

— hi s rem o va lfr o m s ch o o la nd hi s pi cture being print ed in a l oca lnewsp aper

— an d su ggeste d an increa s e e qu ivalent to a tw o-l evel up w ard ad j u st m en t fo r a v u ln er ab le v ict im , see U
. S. S. G
. § 3A 1.1(b). T h e pr os ec u to r, w h o h ad n ot m et w ith T .S., a c kn ow led ge d th at so m e o f h is d ist re ss m i g h t re lat e t o d ifficu l t i e s s u r r o u n d i n gth e d i s c l o s u r e o fh i s s e x u a li d en t i t y . T he p r o s e c ut o r a l s o c o mm ente d tha th e fi nd s i t di ffi cul t to a cc epttha t co nv i ct i o ns f o r po ss es sing6 N o. 10

- 1080 ch i l d po r no g r aph y o fte n r es ul t i n a hi g he r i m pr i so nm ent r ange than co nvi cti ons f orcr i m es, l i ke Brad ley ’ s, th at act ua ll y i nv olve sexu al contac t w ith a m inor. Defen se c o uns el, o n the o th erha nd, pr es se d the di st r i ctc o ur t to i m po se a 6 0- m o nth s en te nc e, hi g hl i ghti ng Bradl ey’ s coo perat i on with the federa li nvesti gat i on, his l ack ofcr i m i nalhi sto ry, and the f act that T. S. had suffer ed no physi cali nj ury. Defense counsel conve yed r egret abo ut the new spaper’ s i denti fi cati on o fT. S
. , b utmai nt aine d tha t B rad le y s ho ul d no t be puni shed f orthe paper’ s a cti ons. Defense counseli n sis ted th atBr adl ey ’ s ac ti o ns wer e o uto fcha ra ct er, a nd he re m i nd ed th e c ourtthatunti lhi s a rr estBradl ey had earned an educati on and worke d his enti re l i fe, had been m ar ri ed f or near l y 32 yea rs , w as an active fa th er to f o urda ug ht er s, a nd v o l unt ee r ed athi s ch ur ch

. D uring his all ocu tion, B rad ley told th e d istri ct cou rt th athe met T. S
. i n a pho ne s ex c ha tl i ne f o r a dul t m en, at w h ich tim e T .S. ha d sa id h e w as an 18 -ye ar -old h igh sc h oo l se n ior. B ra d ley ’s as se rt ion th at h e in itia lly th o ughtT
. S
. wa s 1 8 i s c o ns i s t e ntwi th the n e ws pa per re portthatT. S. was m i sr epres entin g h i s a ge on M yS pace as 18. Bradl ey m ain tained that he was upfr ont w i th T. S
. abo uthi s o wn ag e a nd s ai d he b eg anque st i o ni ng w hetherT. S. was 18 afterse ei ng his picture on “ Faceboo k” and rec ei vi ng nude p ict ures fro m T. S. ( This photo of T. S. m ay be the “chi l d pornog ra ph y im age ” found on Br ad l ey’ s co m pu ter, but the r eco rd i s no t co ncl usi ve, and app ar entl y the l aw yers f ornei thersi de l oo ked at the i m age . ) Bradl ey ad m itte d knowing that T. S. wasN o. 10

- 1080 7 und e r a g e b y the t i me the y me ti n I l l i no i s , b uth e i ns i ste d th at h e ne ve r d ec eiv ed T .S. ab ou t his in te n tio n s, or int im idat ed hi m , o r u sed o r thr ea te ne d v i o l en ce . Br adl eye xpress ed re m or se and assur ed the cour t that he had “neve r done anythi ng l i ke thi s be f or e” and w oul d “ n ever d o a n y th i n gl i k e i ta g a i n . ” T h e c o u r ti n t e r r u p t e d h i m, ask i ng i fT. S. wa s “the fi rs t, ” t o w hi ch Bradl ey re sponded : “The fi rs t underage? Yes. ” Bra dle y c oncl ud ed by v o wi ng ne v e r a g a i n t o us e a s o c i a l

- ne t wo r k i ngsi te orphone chato r d o anythi ng to underm i ne hi s chance s of re c on n ec tin g w ith h is d au gh te rs or s oc iet y in ge n er al. The dis tr i ct c ou rt , unpersuaded by Bradle y’ s words, c ha r a c t e ri zed h i m a s “ Dr
. J e k y l la nd Mr
. Hy de ” a nd a c h ild p re d at or an d to ld h im : B u t in tru th in fa c t, M r . B r a d ley , you are a p at h et ic per so n. Ic an ’t thinko fa mor e ca l cul at ed an d h ein ou s c ri m e u p on ch ild re n th an th is on e. T h e o n ly thi ng w or se you coul d hav e done to thi s chi l d w as to h av e k illed h im . B u t w aita se c on d . Yo u d id kill hi m . You ki l l ed hi s s pir i t, hi s s el f

- est eem , hi s co nfide nc e i n hi mse l f, h i s s e c ur i t y, a nd h i s ab i l i t y t o c o pe wi thl i fe. Yo u ha ve k i l l ed th e p erson he was , f o r the vic tim her e, T. S. , wil lneve r be the sa m e. A nd he wil l like ly go th ro u gh th e re s t o fh is life in livin g h ell be ca us e o fy o u. T h e c ou rt, ha vin g re ad a let te r fro m B ra d ley ’s 7 8-y ea r-o ld m othe r i n w hi ch she quotes TheM e r c ha n to f Ve nicein ask i ng the co urt to tem per j us tic e w i th m er cy, r esponded by paraphras i ng i ts f avo rite ph i l oso pher, the P eanuts ch ar ac te r S no o py, a nd t el l i ngBr adl ey : “ ’ Yo u a r e th e8 N o. 10

- 1080

crabgr ass o n the l aw n ofl i fe.’ A nd yo u know som ethi ng, M r. B ra d ley ? Y ou are luc ky th at you are livin g i n th is countr y a nd n ot i n one ofthe m i dd l e e ast er n countr i es wher e y o u wo u l d b e e x e c u t e d f o r th i s c r i me . ” The cour t a sse rt ed that the i m pri sonm ent r ange w as “so i na d equa te unde r the f ac ts o fthi s ca se tha t to e ve n c o nsid er a gu id elin e s en te n c e w ou ld be a t ra ve st y of ju st ice ,” and i nstea d, the c ourtco nti nued , the “f acts o fthi s ca se pr es en t th e ex ce pti o na l ci r cumst an ce s th at ca l lf or a se nt e nc e n e a r the t o p o fthe s t a t ut o r y r a ng e ” o f3 0 y ear s. “In f ac t, ” th e co ur t to l d Br adl ey, “ I ’ ve g i ve n l i fe se ntence s t o peopl e w h o d ese rv ed i t l ess than the s entence I’m goin g t o b e g ivin g y ou .” The c o ur ts t a t e d tha tthe o nly f a c t o ru nd e r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 553( a) weigh in g i n Bradl ey’ s f avo r w as hi s s tatus as a fi r st
- ti m e defen dan t i n a c r i m inalpr o se cut i o n. Butthe cour t rej ecte d Bradle y’ s a sse rt i on that he had never before eng aged i n sex w ith a m inor: T h i s d o e s n’ t me a n, h o we v e r, th a ty o u h a v e n ’ tc o mm i tte d othercr i m es. I t doe sn’ t m ean that y ou’ ve li ved a l aw -abiding l ife. I t j us t m ean s you h aven ’t been caught and charg ed with o thercr i m es. Even parag ra ph 10 o fyo ur p re sente nce r epor t s tat es that yourco m pu terhad chi l d pornog ra p hy i m age s a s w ellas othe r i m ages of porn ograp hy on it. I can’t h e lp bu t to w ond er how m an y othe r T.S. ’s ofyours ar e o ut ther e. You, o bvi ousl y, o perat ed yo ur cr i m i nal activity un d er the rad ar. The cour t then anal yze d the o ther§ 3553 ( a) f acto rs : Fact oro ne o f35 53( a) as ks thi s Courtto co nsi der the nature and ci rcum st an ces ofthe offense, and thatN o. 10

- 1080 9 i s s om ethi ng Idon’ t thi nk Ineed t o re p eat. Fo r as I sai d e ar l i er, thi s was a hei nous cr i m e co m m i tte d ag ains t a vi ctim he r e th atwi l lha ve a l i fe- l o ngl as ting i m pact o n hi s f am i l y, too
. Even the hi sto ryand char acter i sti cs g o aga i nst y ou wh en you c on si der what w as fou n d on you r c om p u te r. Fact ortwo, the need f orthe sente nce i m posed, A , to re flectthe ser i ousness o fthe offense, to pro m ote re spe ctf o r the l aw, a nd t o pr o m o te j us t puni sh m en t f orthe offense . O therthan possibl y a te rr or i st att ack, Ican’ t thi nk o fa m or e s er i ous o ffense than wh at was co m m i tted he r e, a c r i m e ag ains t o urc hi l dr en . And whethe r o r no t, y o u kno w, he wi l li ng l y, i n y o ur m i nd , enga ged i n sexualc on d u c t with yo u, the f act i s he w as 15 ye ar s o l d and you kne w bet ter
. You sh o uld hav e wal k ed away, b uty o u di dn’ t. And you’ re go i ng to pay the pr i ce fornotwalk i ng away. Bu tt o p r o mot e r e s pe c tf or the l a w a nd t o p r o v i de j us t p un ishm en t, a stiff sen ten ce i s ne cess ary. T o aff ord adequate dete rr ence to cri m i nalco nd uct, thi s f acto r cri es out f oran above

- gui del i nes s entence i n or der to send a m ess age to o therpedophil es and perver ts thi s s oci etywil lnotto l er ate thi s co nd uct. R egard ing the need to protec t t h e p u b li c, th e cou rt st at ed, “ The r e i s l i tt l e que st i o n in my mi nd tha t th e publ ic and so ci ety ne eds t o b e pr o te ct ed fr o m Pa ul Br adl eyf o r a l o ngt i m e, a nd th at ifr el ea se d t o o s o o n, the Court bel i eve s y ou would r eenga ge i n the sa m e acti vi ty th at you are ch ar ge d w ith h er e.” T h e c ou r t t h e n to ld B ra d ley :10 N o. 10

- 1080 Iam nota m edi caldocto r, b u t you have to be a s i ck i nd i vi du alto have done wh at you did. Idon’ t know w h et h e r e d u c at ion al or m ed ica l tre at m en t w ill he lp you, but i t’ s obvi ous y ou need tr eat m ent, bo th educati onaland m ed ica l ifyo u ar e e vergo i ng to be ab l e to l i ve a l aw - ab i di ngl i fe o nc e r el ea se d. And co nsi der i n gth e n a t u r e o fth i s o ffe n s e , th a tt r e a t men t m ay ta ke a lon g t im e. The cour t co ncl ud ed by sente nci ng Bradl ey to 240 m o nths ’ i m pri so nm en t, 1 69 months abo ve the hi g h e nd of th e g u id elin es ran ge .
II. A N A L Y S IS Br adl eya r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t vio l at ed hi s r i g ht to du e proce ss by specul ating that he had c om m i tte d th is t yp e o f c r i m e be for e a n d w ou ld d o it a ga inif released t o o soon. Brad ley al so argu es th at th e cou rt o ve r st eppe d b y e qua tingT. S
. ’ s su ffer i ngto de ath, a nd er ro ne o us l y a t t r i b ut ed hi s e m oti onal di str ess to B ra d ley ’s c rim e ra th er th an be i n g ou tt ed to h is fa m ily an d cl as smat es . At o r al ar g um en t, th e g o ve r nm ent c o nceded that no e vi dence i n the re cor d dir ectly s up port s th e cou rt ’s as su m p tio n s ab ou t B ra d ley ’s p as t a n d h is r i sko fr ec i di vi sm. Buts ti l l, s ay s th e g o ve r nm en t, the cour t a dequ ate l y j usti fi ed i ts bel i ef s about Bradle y b y r efer en cingthe c hi l d po r no g r aph y a nd s to r i es o fs ex u al e n c ou n te rs inv olv in g t ee n ag e b o y s fo u n d on h is com pu terand choosi ng to di sbel i eve Bradl ey’ s decl ar at i o n tha t hi s en co unt erwi thT. S
. w as hi s fi r stwi tha chi l d. The g overnm ent a l so ar gues that the c ourtappro-N o. 10

- 1080 11 pri ate l y c oncl ud ed that T .S.’s tr aum a r esul ted fro m the offense. A nd i n any eve nt, the gov er nm ent i n si sts , Bradle y for fei ted the se obj ecti ons to hi s s entence because he di d not r ai se them to the dist ri ct c ourt
. T h e g o v e r n me nt ’ s f o r fe i t u r e a r g u me n tf a i l s , a s we h av e m a d e c lea r th at a d efe n d an t n ee d n ot“c om p lain about a j ud i ci alchoi ce a fterit h as been m ade. ” U nited S t at e s v . Ba r t l et t, 56 7 F .3d 90 1, 91 0 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ), ce rt
. den ied, 130 S. Ct. 1137 (20 10 ); see U ni t e d S t at e s v. Paul, 54 2 F.3 d 59 6, 59 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d St at e s v. C unn i ngh am , 429 F.3d 673, 679-80 (7 t h C ir. 2005). A s for B rad ley’s com p lai nt that the d istri ct cou rt overstate d T.S. ’s suffer i ng, the onl y e vi dence ofT. S.’s di str ess co m es fro m his ow n sh if t in g accou nt s given to th e prob ation offi cer. N o re port s fro m T. S. ’ s counsel i ng ses si ons or fro m any physi ci an o r psy chol ogi st w er e pr ese nted. The go ver nm ent points o ut that“neg ati ve em oti onalco nseque nc es ” na tu r al l y r es ul t fr o m thi s ty pe o fo ffen se, an d sure l y thi s is t rue. But the questi on her e i s o ne o f degre e, a n d nothi ng i n the re cor d sugges ts conse quences o fthe ma g ni t ud e the di s t r i c tc o ur tde s c r ib e d. I n o urv i ew, ho wev er, the g r ea te r c o nc ern i s th e ab se nc e o fs uppo r t f o r the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s as su m pti o ns th at B ra dl eyha d c o m m i tt ed undi sc o ve r ed cr i m es a nd thus was l i kel y t o com m i t m or e i fr el eas ed. Bradl ey r i g ht l y que st i o ns the p ropr i ety o fthe c o ur t’ s di spa r ag i ng c om m en ts , pa rt icu lar ly the gl ib re spon se to h is m othe r’ s pl ea f orm er cy. W e re centl y obser ved thata “l i t a n y o fi n fl a mma t o r y r e ma r k s ” c a n u n d e r mi n e the en tir e an aly sis of a se n te n c in g ju d g e. U ni t e d S t at e s v.12 N o. 10

- 1080 Fig ue r oa , 622 F.3d 73 9, 74 3-4 4 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); see U nited Sta tes v. Lo pez , 974 F. 2d 50, 52 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92); U nited Sta tes v. Sc hn eider, 9 10 F
. 2d 15 69 , 1 57 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0)
. Her e, the cour t’ s unneces sar i l y har sh and exag ger ate d l anguage by itselfg i ve s us pa us e, b utwhenwe al so c o ns i derthe spe cul at i o n un der l y i ngthe c o urt ’s r ea so ns f o r the ex tr em e v a r i an c e fro m th e g u id elin es ran ge , w e s im p ly c an n otco n c lu d e t h a t t h e c ou rtim p os ed a re as on ab le sente nce. Appel l at e co ur ts r ev i ew the r ea so nabl en es s o fs en te n c es fo r a b u se of d isc re tio n . G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U. S
. 3 8, 5 1 ( 20 07 )
. W e m us t fi r ste ns ur e th at th e se nte n c in g c ou rtm ad e “ n o s ign ifica n t p ro c e d u ra l err or ,” in c lu d in g “ se lec tin g a se n te n c e b as ed on cle ar ly er r o ne o us f ac ts , o r f ai l i ngt o ad equa te l y e xpl ain the chose n sent ence. ” Id. A defenda nt has a due pro cess r i g htt o b e se nt en ce d b as ed o n a cc ur at e i nf o r m at i o n, and the th re shol d fo r accura cy i s whether the info rm ati on has “ s uffi c i e nti nd i c i a o fr e l i ab i l i t y t o s up po r ti ts probabl e a ccura c y. ” U nited Sta tes v. P ulley, 60 1 F
. 3d 660, 665 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. S entencing ju d ges nece ssa ri l y hav e “di sc r et i o n to dr aw co nc l us i o ns ab o ut th e testi m o ny g i ve n a nd e vi den ce i nt r o duce d a t se nt en cing, ” bu t “due pr o ce ss r equi r es th at se nt en cing de te r m i na ti o ns be bas ed o n r el i ab l e ev i den ce, no t spe cul at i o n o r unf o un de d a l l e g a t i o ns . ” U nit e d S t at e s v. Engl and, 55 5 F
. 3d 616, 622 (7th C ir. 2009), c e r t
. de ni e d, 2 01 0 W L 31535 46 (20 10 ); s e e U ni t e d St at e s v. M ays , 5 93 F.3d 603 , 608 (7th C ir. 2 0 10 ), cert. denied , 130 S. C t. 33 40 (20 10 ); P ulley, 6 0 1 F
. 3d at 66 5; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rol l i ns ; 54 4 F .3d 820, 83 8 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. B a rker, 467 F
. 3d 625, 62 9- 30 ( 7thN o. 10

- 1080 13 C ir. 20 06 ); U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 454 F. 3d 642, 652 (7th C ir. 2006 ). A co nc l us i o n i s m o r e li kel y t o b e su st ainabl e i fthe unde r l y i nga na l y si s i s “s uffi cie nt l y pa r ti cul ar i ze d t o the ind ivi d ua l circum stan ces of the ca se rath er than f acto rs c om m on to offe n d er s w ith like c rim es .” U nited S t a tes v. M iller, 601 F
. 3d 734, 73 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. Fo r exam ple , we a ffi r m ed an a bove

- g ui del i ne s se nt en ce whenthe di st r i ctc o ur t detail ed te n s pec i fi c r ea so ns s uppo r ting i ts con c lu sio n that the defendant posed a parti cul arr i sk for rec id i vis m . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jor dan , 43 5 F
. 3d 693, 69 7 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ). O n th e o t h e r h an d , w e re c en tly rem an d ed f or resent en cing w he re the d istri ct cou rt re l i ed up on i ts unsup port ed bel i ef s about re ci divi sm r at es f o r c hi l d s ex o ffen d ers as a r ea so n t o s en te nc e th e d efe n d an t a b ov e th e g u id elin es . M iller, 60 1 F
. 3d at 740. The de fen dan t i n M iller w as a 3 3- yea r- ol d fe m al e who, like B ra d ley , ha d n o c rim in al re c or d

. Id. a t 7 3 5

- 3 6
. S he ple aded gui l ty to tr avel in g i n i nter sta te com m er ce t o en ga ge in p ro h ibit ed se x u al a c tiv ity w ith a 14 -ye ar -old sh e m et on lin e. Id

. M i l l er ’ s i m pri sonm ent r ange w as 70 to 87 m onths, but the c ourtse nten c ed h er to 12 0 m onths base d , a t leas t in part, o n an unsubsta nti ate d beliefthat recidivism rates for ch il d sex o ffen d ers are “m a s siv e” an d th at tre at m en t o p tio n s a re ble ak

. Id. at 739. N ei therthe gov er nm en t n orthe cour t had i denti fi ed an y s u p p or tin g e vid en c e a b ou t r e c i d ivis m , eith er in g ene r alo r abo utM i l l eri n pa r ti cul ar, tho ug h the g o ve r nm en t pre sen ted a ph oto albu m cataloging M il ler’ s p r e vio u s re lat ion sh ip w ith an ot h er you n g t ee n ag e g irl. Id

. a t 73 6, 7 39
. On appe alwe wer e tr o ubl ed th atthe14 N o. 10

- 1080 dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s tat em ents, ev en if tr u e, appli ed to al lse x offe n d er s a n d w er e n otsp ec ific t o M iller. Id. at 73 9. M iller p ro vid ed u s w ith st u d ies ind ica tin g low er rec id ivi sm r at es f o r femal es a nd the a va i l ab i l i tyo fe ffec ti ve s ex offe n d er tre at m en t. Id. at 73 9- 40
. Af te r c o ns i der i ng th e s e s t ud i e s a nd the de a r th o f e v i de nc e s pe c i fi c to M i l l er ’ s r ec i di vi sm i n the r eco r d, we co nc l ude d tha t th e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s be l i ef s were, atbes t, subj ect to debate and ther ef or e inadequ ate to j usti fy the abo ve- gui del i nes se n te n c e. Id. at 740. Br adl eya r g ue s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t, a s i n M i ller, i m pr o per l y s pec ul at ed th athe woul d r ec i di va te
. The govern m en t cou nt e r s t h a t in this case th e d istri ct cou rt m ad e an i nd i vi du al i zed deter m i nati on ba sed upon “s pec i fi c ev i den ce ” th atBr adl eyne eded a l en g thy s e n t e n c e t o p r e v e n thi m fr o m c o mmi t t i n gth e s a me cri m e a gain. B u t that c onte nti on i s no t s up port ed by the r eco rd. In f act the di str i ct c ourtwen t fu rt h er out on th e l i m b th anthe j udg e di d i n M iller : i ns te ad o fmaking a quest i onabl e pr edi cti on about future behav i orbas ed on a sin gle e p i s o d e o f d ev ian t c on d u c t, th e jud ge in thi s ca se m ade a predi cti on about future c ond uct ba sed on r ank sp ecu l ati on about othe r, m ult i ple i nstance s o f dev i an t be ha vi o r . Inde ed, i n M illerthe d efen d a nt ’s p h o t o album confirm ed the ex istenc e of a p riorun d erage vi cti m , but no s i m i l arev i denc e i s pre sent here

. M or eove r, any i nd i vi du al i zed deter m i nati on a pp ear s l i m i ted to th e c o u rtco n sid er in g B ra d ley ’s p os se ss ion of ch ild pornog ra phy, lack o fcr i m i nalhi sto ry, and ass er ti on that he ha d ne ve r do ne thi s be f o r e and c o nc l udi ngtha t he w as a be l ow-the- ra dar pedophil e w h o w oul d rec i diva te.N o. 10

- 1080 15 Posse ssi on o fchi l d porn og raph y i s a se parat e o ffense th at th e c o u r t p ro p er ly c on sid er ed , M ays , 59 3 F
. 3d at 609- 10, but i t i s un c lea r how the cour t co nnected the posses si on o fchi l d pornog ra phy w i th the co n cl usi on that B ra d ley h ad co m m itt ed th is c rim e b efo re an d w ou ld co m m i t i t ag ain. T h is c on c lu sio n su ffer s fro m th e s am e d efe c t a s in M iller

— the di s t r i c tc o ur tr e l i e d o n i t s u ns ub s t a nt i ate d b elie f th at p os se ss or s o f ch ild p o rn og ra p h y in ev ita b ly ar e chi l d sex o ffen d ers. S uch specul ati on ca nnot s urvi ve d u e p ro c es s c h alle n ge . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Ne wm an , 61 4 F
. 3d 12 32 , 12 38

- 39 ( 11th C ir. 2010) (r emandi ng w h en se n te n c in g c ou rtco n c lu d ed w ith ou t s u p p or t in re cor d that defendant br ought hi s s on t o M id d le East b ec au se it w o u l d be d ifficu lt for an yo n e t o fin d h im there); Engl and, 55 5 F
. 3d at 623 ( re m anding w hen prep on d er ance o fev i dence f ai l ed to support dist ri ct cour t’ s fi nd i ng tha t defendant w ou l d have a tte m pted m ur der ha d he be en o ut o n bo nd)

. The gover nm en t argu es th at, desp ite the s p e cu lation, the d istri ct cou rt sti l li m pose d a re aso nabl e s entence and prov i ded an ade qua te ex p l an at i o n b y di sc us singthe s en te nc i ng f acto rs l i ste d i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3 55 3(a )
. But the evaluati on oftho se f acto rs was fl aw ed from the i ncepti on be cause the c ourt ’ s a sse ss m en t o fthe ver y fi rs t f acto r

— th e na tu re and circum stan ces of the offense an d Brad ley’s h ist or y a n d ch ar ac te ris tic s, see id. § 3 5 5 3 ( a) ( 1)

— re sts o n spe cul at i o n r athe r tha n e vi den ce b ea r i ng“ su ffi ci en t i nd i ci a o fr el iab ility

. ” P ulley, 601 F.3d at66 5. A n d th is sk ewe d v i ew o fthe fi r stf ac to r ne ce ssar i l y c o l o r ed th e cour t’ s v i ew o fthe re m ai ni ng § 3553 ( a) f acto rs. Because16 N o. 10

- 1080 the dist ric t co urt base d Bradle y’ s s entence o n i ts specul at i o n ab o u tp a s tc r i me s a n d h i s p o t e n t i a lf o r r e c i d i v i s m, w e v acat e B ra dle y’ s sentence and rem and fo r re sente nci ng. On a fi nalnot e, Bradl ey al so ar gues that the di str i ct cour t di d not e xpli ci tl y a dopt a v er si on o fthe disputed f a c t s s ur r o un di ngthe o ffe ns e . T he g o v e r nme ntr e s po nd s that the cour t adopted the fi nd i ngs i n th e p re sente nce re p or t. Y et m at er ial fa c tu al d isc re p an c i e s ab ou n d in th e p r e s e n t e nc e r e p o r t
. T h e b o t t o m l i n e i s th e s a me

— Bradle y e ngage d i n i lleg al s exual co nd uct

—butthe j ou rney there rem ains largely u p to deb ate, as Brad ley’s an d T. S
. ’ s ac co unt s ar e whol l y i nc o m pat ibl e. The di st r i ctc ou rt, the n, a s a fi r sts te p t o c o ns i der i ngthe app ro pri ate se ntence, wil lneed t o re sol ve these di sputed i ssues o ff act. See F ED . R. C RIM . P . 32(i)(3 )(B ); U nited St at e s v. D e an , 414 F.3d 725 , 727 (7th C ir. 2005).

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Bradle y’ s s entence i s V ACATED , an d th is c a s e is R EMAND ED for fur therpro ceedi ngs c onsi ste nt with thi s o pi ni o n. Ci r c ui tR ul e 3 6 s ha l la pp l y o n r e man d.

12- 13- 10