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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 44 37

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

Ant on Alex an de r Mar tynen ko

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: Feb ru ary 12 , 20 18 Fil ed : Ap ril 3, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MURPHY an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ant on Alex an de r Mar tynen ko pl ed gu il ty to pr od uc ti on of ch il d po rn og rap hy,
18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a), (e) (Co un t 1)
, di st r i b u t i o n o f ch il d po rn og rap hy, 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2)
, (b )(1 ) (Co un t 2)
, an d ad ve rti se m en t of ch i l d p o rn og rap hy, 18 U.S.C.§ 22 51 (d )(2 )(B)
, (e) (Co un t 3)

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Mar tynen ko to 45 6 1

mo n t h s im

pr is on m en t— 36 0 m on th s on Co un ts 1 an d 3 to ru n co nc ur ren tl y an d a

co ns ecu ti ve 12 0 m on th s o n C o u n t 2, fo ll owe d by a 24 m on th red uc ti on in th e

s e n te nc e fo r reas on s no t rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

. Mar tynen ko ap pe al s hi s se nt en c e

. Fo r th e rea so ns ex pl ai ne d b el ow, we af fir m

.

Fi rs t, Mar tynen ko arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to ex pl ai n hi s se nt en ce ad eq ua te ly. A di st ric t co ur t " m us t ad eq ua te ly exp la in th e ch os en sen te nc e to al lo w fo r m ean in gf

ul ap pe ll at e rev ie w an d to pr om ot e th e pe r c e p t i o n of fai r se nt en ci ng ." Gall v. Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 50 (20 07 ). I t m us t be cl ear fro m th e reco rd th at th e se nt en ci ng co ur t act ua ll y co ns id ered th e fact or s li st ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53
, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t ne ed no t el ab or at e on each fact or

. See Uni te d St at es v. Hern an de z, 51 8
F.3 d 61 3, 61 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Fai lu re to ex pl ai n a s e n t e nc e ad eq ua te ly is a
pr oc ed ur al erro r rev ie wed fo r pl ai n erro r whe n, as he re, th ere was no ob jecti on be lo w. Uni te d St at es v. Ch av arri a-Ort iz
, 82 8 F.3 d 66 8, 67 1 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 6 )

. Und er pl ai n

erro r rev ie w, th e ap pe ll an t m us t sh ow "t ha t a m or e de ta il ed ex pl an at io n wou ld ha ve

res ul te d in a li gh te r se nt en ce." Id

. Here, M a r tynen ko do es no t ev en at te m pt to de m on st rat e th at h e was pr ejud ic ed by th e di st ric t co ur t's li m it ed di sc us si on of th e

reas on s fo r hi s s e n t en ce. Thu s, ev en as su m in g ar gu en do th at th e di st ric t co ur t's

ex pl an at io n was in ad eq ua te , Mart y ne nk o h as sh own no pl ai n e rro r.

Seco nd
, Mar tynen ko arg ue s th e se nt en ce is subs ta nti ve ly unr ea sona

ble be ca us e th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve to o m uc h weig ht to un ch arg ed co nd uc t an d th e se nt en ce is no t "n eces sa ry ." W e rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a s e n te nc e fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Zay as , 7 5 8 F

. 3 d 9 86
, 99 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). "A di st ric t

co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it (1 ) fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fa ct or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht ; (2 ) gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard H. Ky le
, 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.

-2

-irr el ev an t fact or ; or (3 ) co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e

fact or s co m

m it s a cl ear erro r of

jud gm en t." Uni te d St at es v. Bo rro m eo , 65 7 F.3 d 75 4,
75 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. W he n a de fen da n t f a i l s t o ob

ject to

co ns id erat io n of an im

pr op er fact or at se nt en ci ng , we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. Uni te d
St at es v. O'Co nn or , 56 7 F.3 d 39 5, 39 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). If a de fen da nt do es no t ob ject

to th e fact s in a pr es en te nc e rep or t, "t he co ur t m ay acce pt th e fact s as tru e an d rel y on th e un ob jecte d- to fact s" at se nt en ci ng

. Uni te d St at es v. Dou gl as , 6 46 F.3 d 11 34
, 11 37 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

Here, be cau se Mar tynen ko di d no t ob ject to th e fact s in th e pr es en te nc e rep or t th at he no w co m

pl a i n s were irr el ev an t an d un pr ov en , it was no t im pr op er fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to rel y on th em whe n an al y zi ng th e § 35 53 fact or s. Id

. Mar tynen ko ha s

no t dem on st rat ed th at co ns id erat io n of tho se fact s gav e ris e to an erro r th at is pl ai n, th at affe ct ed hi s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d th at "s eri ou sl y affe c t s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y

or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs ." O'Co n n o r , 56 7 F.3 d at 39 7 (ci ta ti on

om it te d)

. In arg ui ng th at hi s se nt en ce is no t "n eces sa ry ," Mar tynen ko cl ai m s th at th e Uni te d St at es Se nte nc in g Gui de li ne s tre at ch il d po rn og rap hy of fen se s to o ha rs hl y an d th at it was an ab us e of di sc re t i o n to de ny hi s req ue st fo r a se nt en ce be lo w th e
gu id el in e ran ge

. Giv en th e se ve rit y of Mar tynen ko 's co nd uc t, we co nc lu de th at it was

no t an ab us e of di sc ret io n fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to reject hi s po li cy di sa gr eem en ts wit h th e gu id el in es an d se nt en ce hi m to 38 y ears —a se nt e n c e a t th e lo wer en d of hi s
gu id el in e ran ge

.

Th ird
, Mar tynen ko arg ue s hi s se nt en ce vi ol at es th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t' s
pr oh ib it io n of cru el an d un us ua l pu ni sh m en t. "We rev ie w Eig ht h Am en dm en t

se nt en ci ng ch al le ng es de no vo ." Uni te d S ta te s v

. Mee ks
, 75 6 F.3d 11 15
, 11 20 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). W e fir st co m pa re Mar tynen ko 's cri m e wit h hi s s e n t e n c e ; an Eig ht h
Am en dm en t vi ol at io n can be fo un d on ly whe n th is co m pa ris on "l ead s to an in fere nc e of gr os s di sp ro po rti on al it y ." Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 94 4 F.2 d 3 96 , 40 9 (8 th Cir

. 19 91 ). In on ly "an ex tre m el y rare cas e" wil l a no nc a p i t a l se nt en ce be "s o

-3

-di sp ro po rti on at e to th e un de rlyin g c r i m e th at [it ] ru ns afo ul of th e Eig ht h

A men dm en t." Mee ks
, 75 6 F.3 d at 11 20 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bak er, 41 5 F.3 d
88 0, 88 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (s eco nd qu ot at io n) ). Mar tyn e n k o en ga ge d in a fo ur y ear

sc he m e to en ti ce do zen s of m in or m al es to se nd hi m nu de ph ot og rap hs on so ci al

m ed ia
, th en to di st rib ut e th os e ph ot og rap hs to th ei r acq ua in ta nc es , bl ack m ai li ng th em
to se nd m or e. The vi ct im im pa ct st at em en ts de m on st rat e th e de va st at in g effe ct of th e cri m es on th ei r y ou ng li ve s, an d two of hi s vi ct im s la te r co m m it te d s u i c i d e

. Th e
pr es en te nc e rep or t de sc rib es un ch arg ed rel ev an t co nd uc t to whi ch Mar tynen ko di d

no t ob ject, in cl ud in g bl ack m ai li ng m in o r v i ct im s in to en ga gi ng in co erce d se xu al

act s. On th es e fact s, a 38 y ear se nt en ce do e s n o t gi ve ris e to an in fere nc e of gr os s di sp ro po rti on al it y , and we th us reject Mart y ne nk o's Eig ht h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-4

-