NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_____________ 

No. 09-2417 

_____________ 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

STEPHEN HUMANIK, 

Appellant 

_____________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

(D.C. Criminal No. 3-08-cr-00265-001) 

District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley 

_____________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

January 10, 2011 

Before: RENDELL, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges. 

(Opinion Filed: January 27, 2011) 

_____________ 

OPINION OF THE COURT 

_____________ 

RENDELL, Circuit Judge. 

On December 12, 2008, defendant Stephen Humanik pleaded guilty to one count 

of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). Based on a 

presentence report that found that Humanik had accumulated over 39,000 images of child 

pornography over a six-year period, the District Court calculated Humanik’s guideline 
range to be 210 to 240 months and sentenced Humanik to 210 months in prison. 

Humanik appeals his sentence, arguing that it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment 

and that it is unreasonable, as it is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes set 

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We will affirm Humanik’s sentence for the reasons set out 

below. 

Humanik’s first contention is that his sentence of 210 months in prison violates the 

Eighth Amendment, as it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. This Court exercises 

plenary review over most Eighth Amendment challenges. United States v. MacEwan, 445 

F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006). When such a challenge is not raised in the district court, as 

occurred in this case, we review for plain error1

. United States v. Knight, 266 F.3d 203, 

206 (3d Cir. 2001). Humanik does no more than cite United States v. Atkins and Weems 

v. United States for the standard for punishment which is cruel and unusual. 536 U.S. 

304 (2002); 217 U.S. 349 (1910). He does not explain why the District Court’s actions in 

sentencing amounted to plain error. We find no plain error. 

Humanik’s second contention is that his sentence is unreasonable. We review a 

sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. United States v. 

Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 567 (3d Cir. 2009). Our analysis of a sentence is in two stages; 

 1

 For plain error to be present, we must find: 

 (1) [A]n error was committed, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or 

obvious, and (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights. 

In addition, even where plain error exists, our discretionary authority 

to order correction is to be guided by whether the error seriously 

affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial 

proceedings. Knight, 266 F.3d at 206. 

2 
3 

we ensure that a sentence is (1) procedurally reasonable and (2) substantively reasonable. 

Id. We find procedural error by a district court in such circumstances as “failing to 

calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as 

mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence 

based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenceincluding an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). If the sentence passes muster procedurally, we then 

review the substantive nature of the sentence, where we focus on the totality of the 

circumstances to ensure reasonableness. Tomko, 562 F.3d at 567. Humanik argues that 

the sentence is substantively unreasonable because it does not satisfy the § 3553 (a) 

factors; specifically, the length of the sentence is greater than necessary to comply with 

the purposes set forth in the statute. We disagree. The sentence was at the low end of the 

guideline range and was not unreasonable. The District Court did not abuse its 

discretion. 

We will affirm Humanik’s sentence.