# 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- 42 88

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

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.

Tho m as Pet ers on

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 Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 17 , 20 17
Fil ed : Ap ril 4, 2 01 8

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Defen da nt Tho m as Pet ers on , a fo rm er pr oba tio n of fi ce r, ap pe al s hi s co nv ic ti on

on fo ur co un ts of th e de pr iv at io n of hi s fem al e pr ob at io ne rs ’ ci vi l rig ht s in vi ol at io n

of 18 U

. S

. C

. § 2 42 an d hi s su bs eq ue nt se nt en ce of 10 8 m on th s im pr is on m en t.

Pet ers on arg ue s: (1 ) th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on s; (2 ) th edi st ric t co ur t erre d in reject in g hi s th eo ry of de fen se in st ru ct io n; (3 ) th e di st ric t co ur t 1

pr oc ed ur al ly err ed in cal cu la ti ng hi s se nt en ce; an d (4 ) hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . W e d is ag ree a nd affi rm Pet ers on ’s con vi ct io n a nd sen te nc e.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Pet ers on was a s t a t e de pu ty pr ob at io n of fic er wit h th e Dis tri ct 9 Pro ba ti on
Offi ce in Kearn ey , Neb ras ka

. Fro m ap pr ox im at el y Octo be r 20 10 th ro ug h Ja nu ary

20 14

, Pet ers on ’s cas el oa d w a s c o mp ris ed en ti rel y of th e hi gh es t ris k

of fen de rs —o ffen de rs who are de em ed m os t l ik el y to re-o ffen d ba se d up on th ei r
cri m in al hi st or y , reco rd of co m pl ia nc e wit h su pe rv is io n, an d al co ho l an d dr ug ab us e.

It was Pet ers on ’s job to su pe rv is e th es e of fen de rs , in cl ud in g co nd uc ti ng ho m e vi si ts

,

m on it or in g c om

pl ia nc e wit h t erm s o f rel eas e, an d re po rti ng th e o ffen de rs ’ pr og res s

to th e co ur t. A rep or t th at th e of fen de rs fai le d t o co m

pl y wit h th e te rm s of th ei r

su pe rv is io n co ul d res ul t in th e pr ob at io ne rs ha vi ng th ei r pr ob at io n rev ok ed

, se nd in g

th e o ffen de rs to jail or p ris on

.

Dur in g the sa

m e tim e pe rio d, Pet ers on en ga ge d in in ap pr op ria te se xu al act s an d

in ap prop ria te se xu al co nt act wit h se ve ral of hi s fem al e pr ob at io ne rs

. Pet ers on wou ld 2

co nd uc t ho m e vi si ts al on e, de sp it e th e Pro ba ti on Offi ce’s po li cy to se nd two of fic ers ,

an d wou ld en ga ge in in ap pr op ria te se xu al be ha vi or du rin g th os e vi si ts

. H e al so

en ga ge d in se xu al co nd u ct wit h pr ob at io ne rs in hi s of fic e du rin g th ei r pr ob at io n

m eet in gs

. Pet ers on wou ld warn th e pr ob at io ne rs whe n ran do m dr ug te st s were go in g

to be co nd uc te d an d whe n ot he r pr ob at io n of fic ers were go in g t o pe rfo rm

un an no un ced ho m e vi si ts

, us in g th is in fo rm at io n to pr es su re hi s pr ob a t i o n e r s in to

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard G. Kop f, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nebr as ka

.

The ph ras es “ se xu al act [s ]” an d “ se xu al co nt act ” are us ed in acco rd an ce wit h 2

th ei r de fin it io ns in 18 U.S.C. § 2 24 6( 2) (A)-(C ), (3 ).

-2

-rep ay in g hi m wit h se xu al fav or s. Pet ers on fu rth er co erce d hi s p r ob at io ne rs by

freq ue nt ly co m

m en ti ng on th e po wer he ha d ov er th em an d hi s ab il it y to pu t of fen de rs

in jail

. At tri al

, th e pr ob at io ne rs al l te st ifi ed th at th ey fear ed st an di ng up to Pet ers on

or reject in g h is ad va nc es be cau se of t he au th or it y th at he ha d o ve r th em

.

On Ju ly 2 9, 20 16 , a jury co nv ic te d Pet ers on of fo ur co un ts of Dep riv at io n of

Ci vi l Ri gh ts un d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 24 2 an d on e co un t of m ak in g Fal se St at em en ts to a

Gov ern m en t Age nt un de r 18 U.S.C. § 10 01

. Pri or to su bm it ti ng th e cas e to th e jury,

Pet er s o n r e q ue st ed a th eo ry of de fen se jury in st ru ct io n, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t

d e n i e d. Fo ll owi ng hi s co nv ic ti on , th e di st ric t co ur t va rie d up ward fro m th e

ot he rwis e ap pl ic a b l e S e nt en ci ng Gui de li ne ran ge an d se nt en ced Pet ers on to 10 8

m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. Pet ers on ap pe al s.

II . Dis cus si on

P e t e r s on fir st m ak es a bl an ke t arg um en t th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r an y of th e f ou r co un ts of de pr iv in g hi s fem al e

pr ob at io ne rs of th e i r c i v il rig ht s. “ W e rev ie w ch al le ng es to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e

ev id en ce de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Sp ig ht

, 81 7 F.3 d 10 99

, 11 02 (8 th C i r. 20 16 )
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. In do in g so , “ we vi ew th e fact s in th e li gh t m os t

fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t, and affi rm if any rat io na l [fact fin de r] cou ld ha ve fo un d th e
de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

. (al te r a t i o n i n or ig in al ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W e al so do “ no t pa ss up on th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es or

th e weig ht to be gi ve n th ei r t es ti m on y be cau se [c]red ib il it y de te rm in at io ns are

un iq ue ly wit hi n th e pr ov in ce of th e tri er of fact

, an d are en ti tl ed to sp eci al de fere nc e.”

Id . (al te rat io n i n o rig in al ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

“ Sect io n 24 2 is a

. . . ci vi l rig ht s st at ut e m ak in g it cri m in al to act (1 ) ‘w il lfu ll y ’

an d (2 ) un de r co l o r o f la w (3 ) to de pr iv e a pe rs on of rig ht s pr ot ect ed by th e

Co ns ti tu ti on or la ws of th e Uni te d St at es .” Uni te d St at es v. Lan ie r, 52 0 U.S. 25 9, 26 4

-3

-(1 99 7)

. An act io n is un de r co lo r of la w if th e d e f e n d a nt m is us ed po wer th at he

“ po ss es se d by vi rtu e of st at e la w an d [th e act io n was ] m ad e po ss ib le on ly be cau se th e

wro ng do er [was ] cl ot he d wit h th e au th or it y of st at e la w.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cla ss ic

, 31 3 U.S. 2 99 , 3 26 (1 94 1) ; se e al so Neig hb or ho od Ent ers ., In c. v. Ci ty o f St . Lo ui s,

54 0 F.3 d 88 2, 88 5 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 08 ). And

, in Hawki ns v. Hol lo way , we he ld th at a
sh eri ff’s “ rep eat ed in te nt io na l to uc hi ng o f [th e vi ct im ’s] br eas ts ” was su ffi ci en t to

fin d th at he de pr iv ed th e vi ct im of he r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. Hawki ns , 31 6 F.3 d 77 7,

78 5 (8 th Cir . 20 03 ).

Here, t he re is no qu es ti on th at Pet ers on ’s con du ct was wi ll fu l, as he do es no t

de ny th at he in te nt io na ll y en ga ge d in se xu al co nd uc t wit h th e vi ct im s; th us , th e fir st

el em en t is sat is fie d. Howev er, Peters on do es arg ue th at th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t

to sh ow th at th e vi ct im s acq ui es ced to hi s se xu al ad va nc es as a res ul t of hi s ab us e of

hi s st at e la w au th or it y

. Co nt rary to Pet ers on ’s co nt en ti on , th e reco rd is rep le te wit h

ev id en ce th at he was act in g un de r co lo r of la w, in cl ud in g t e st im on y fro m th e

pr ob at io ne rs in vo lv ed th at th e se xu al en co un te rs oc cu rred in hi s of fic e an d on ho m e
vi si ts whi le Pet ers on was on du ty an d act in g in th e cap aci ty of a pr ob at io n of fic er.

Fu rth erm or e, al l o f th e p ro ba ti on ers tes ti fie d t ha t th ey acq ui es ced be cau se Pet ers on

ha d th e po wer to cau se th em to be jail ed an d th reat en ed th em wit h th at po wer. Thu s,

we fin d th at th e se co nd e l e m en t is sa ti sf ie d. See Sp ig ht

, 81 7 F.3 d at 11 02 (s ta ti ng

th at we do n o t p a s s o n th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es or th e weig ht gi ve n to th ei r

te st im on y ); see al so Jo hn so n v. Ph il li ps , 66 4 F.3d 23 2, 24 0 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (fi nd in g

th at a po li ce of

fic er act ed un de r th e co lo r of la w whe n he “ fir st effe ct ed a tra ffi c st op ,

arre st ed [a wom an ],

. . . se arch ed he r car, [an d] [t]he n, whi le weari ng a po li ce un ifo rm

an d op erat in g a po li ce car,” rel eas ed he r, le d he r to an em pt y pa rk in g lo t, an d

co m m it te d an as sa ul t); Uni te d St at es v. Gio rd an o, 44 2 F.3 d 30

, 45 (2 d Ci r. 20 06 )
(fi nd in g th at a m ay or act ed un de r th e co lo r of la w whe n, aft er se xu al ly as sa ul ti ng hi s
vi ct im s, he “ th reat en ed h is vi ct im s by in vo ki ng a ‘spe ci al au th or it y ’ to un de rta ke

ret al ia to ry act io n” li ke th ro win g th em in jail or ha rm in g th ei r fam il ie s if th ey rep or te d

hi m ); Uni te d St at es v. Co nt rera s, 95 0 F.2 d 23 2, 24 2- 43 (5 th Ci r. 19 91 ) (fi nd in g th at

-4

-an on -d ut y po li ce of fic er act ed un de r co lo r of l a w w h e n h e se xu al ly as sa ul te d a

wom an a f

t e r s t o p pi ng he r car an d de ta in in g he r to tra ns po rt he r to th e Im m ig rat io n

an d Nat ur al iz at io n Serv ic e); Grif fin v. Ci ty of Opa -Loc ka , 26 1 F .3d 12 95 , 13 04 -0 6
(1 1t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (fi nd in g th at th e ci ty m an ag er rap ed a ci ty em pl oyee un de r co lo r of

la w whe n he “ in vo ke d hi s aut ho rit y as Ci ty Man ag er to creat e th e op po rtu ni ty to be

al on e wit h” he r; “ rem in de d he r of h i s au th or it y by sa y in g ‘I can ’t be li ev e y ou are

te ll in g m e n o aft er ev erythi ng th at I ha ve do ne fo r y ou ’”; an d “ co nt in ue d to in vo ke

hi s au th or it y ov er [th e vi ct im ] to ha ras s he r an d hu m il ia te he r” by “ su m m on [in g] he r

to hi s of fic e” an d as ki ng fo r a hu g an d m ak in g in ap pr op ria te co m m en ts in fro nt of co

wor ke rs ).

Fi na ll y , Pet ers on ’s co nd uc t wit h th e se ve ral vi ct im s was m or e eg reg io us th an

th e co nd uc t in Hawki ns , whi ch we fo un d su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t su bs ta nt iv e du e pr oc es s cl ai m

. See Hawki ns , 31 6 F.3 d at 78 5. Bec au se

th e rec or d p ro vi de s ample e vi de nc e th at Pet ers on en ga ge d i n c on du ct th at de pr iv ed

hi s vi ct im s of th ei r ci vi l rig ht s, we fin d th at th e th ird el em en t is m et

. The refo re, w e
ho ld th at th er e w a s s u f

f ic ie nt ev id en ce fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to fin d th at Pet ers on

co m m it te d fo ur co un ts of de pr iv in g hi s pr ob at io ne r vi ct im s of th ei r ci vi l rig ht s un de r

18 U.S.C. § 2 42

.

Seco nd , Pet ers on arg ue s th at th e di st ric t cou rt e rred in reject in g h is th eo ry of

de fen se in st ru ct io n. A cri m in al de fen da nt is “ en ti tl ed to a th eo r y of de fen se

in st ru ct io n if it is ti m el y req ue st ed

, is su pp or te d by th e e v id en ce, an d is a co rrec t

st at em en t of th e la w.” Uni te d St at es v. Ch at m on , 74 2 F.3 d 35 0, 35 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. “ W e r e v i e w a di st ric t co ur t’s reject io n of

de fen da nt ’s pr op os ed in st ru ct io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n

. . . .” Id

. (in te rn al qu ot at io n

m ark s o m it te d)

.

Pet ers on arg ue s t ha t th e jury sh ou ld ha ve be en in st ru ct ed th at

, in or de r to be

co nv ic te d of de pr iv in g hi s pr ob at io ne rs of th ei r ci vi l rig ht s, he m us t ha ve kn own bo th

-5

-th at he us ed hi s po si ti on of po wer to cau se th e vi ct im s to su bm it to hi s de m an ds an d

th at th e vi ct im s co ns en te d be cau se of th a t i n f l ue nc e. W e are un ab le to fin d an y

au th or it y su p po rti ng Pet ers on ’s in st ru ct io n as a co rrec t st at em en t of th e la w, an d

Pet ers on do es no t cit e an y au th or it y in su pp or t of his arg um en t. See Gio rd an o, 44 2

F.3 d at 46 -4 7 (rejec ti ng th e de fen da nt ’s de fen se th at th e vi ct im s’ fear “ th at he co ul d

us e hi s po wer as m ay or to ha rm th em an d th ei r fam il ie s can no t be rel ev an t to whe th er
he act ed ‘und er co lo r of la w’ ” be cau se th e de fen da nt “ act iv el y an d de li be rat el y us ed

hi s ap pa ren t au th or it y as m ay or to en su re th at th e vi ct im s di d no t res is t or rep or t th e

on go in g ab us e”). The refo re, we fin d 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

in reject in g Pet ers on ’s p ro po se d de fen se in st ru ct io n. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Al va rez,

87 8 F.3 d 64 0, 64 1 ( 8 t h C i r. 20 17 ) (p er cu ria m ) (co nc lu di ng th at th e de fen da nt ’s

arg um en t was wit ho ut m eri t wh en , in pa rt, he fa il ed to cit e au th or it y su pp or ti ng hi s

co nt en ti on ); Uni te d St at es v. Men do za-Go nz al e z , 5 2 0 F.3 d 91 2, 91 8 n.4 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 ) (“M en do za-Go nz al ez ci te s no au th or it y in su pp or t of th is arg um en t. W e

th eref or e reject th is arg um en t.”)

, ov erru le d on ot he r gr ou nd s, 55 6 U.S. 12 32 (2 00 9)

.

Thi rd

, Pet ers on arg ue s th at th e di st ric t cou rt com m it te d a pr oc ed ur al erro r by

im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng hi s Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge

. “ W he n rev ie win g th e
di st ric t co ur t’s cal c u la ti on of th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge , [w]e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s co ns tru ct io n an d

ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Edwar ds

, 82 0 F.3 d 36 2, 36 5
(8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Ass um in g
wit ho ut d eci di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in cal cu la ti ng Pet ers on ’s Sen te nc in g
Gui de li ne s ran ge , we ho ld th at th e erro r was ha rm le ss

. W he n th e di st ric t co ur t

ex pl ic it ly st at es th at it wou ld h a v e i m po se d th e sa m e se nt en ce of im pr is on m en t

reg ard le ss of th e un de rlyin g Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne ran ge , “ an y erro r on th e pa rt of th e
di st ric t co ur t is ha rm le ss .” Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 58 3 F.3 d 10 81

, 10 94 -9 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. McGre w, 84 6 F.3 d 27 7, 28 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (“ [W] he n

th e co ur t de riv e s it s ul ti m at e se nt en ce ap art fro m th e Gui de li ne s an d of fers an

al te rn at iv e ex pl an at io n for it s sen te nc e, su ch ex pl an at io ns m ay ser ve to pr ov e ot he r

-6

-id en ti fie d se nt en ci ng erro rs ha rm le ss .” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ). Here, th e

di st ric t co ur t sp eci fic al ly st at ed at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng th at it wou ld ha ve im po se d

th e sa m e se nt en ce reg ard le ss of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s calc ul at io ns

. The refo re,

we fin d th at an y pr o ced ur al erro r on th e pa rt of th e di st ric t co ur t in cal cu la ti ng

Pet ers on ’s sen te nc e was ha rm le ss . See i d.

F o u rth

, Pet ers on arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

.

“ W he n we rev ie w a de fe ndan t’s se nt en ce to de te rm in e whe th er it is un reas on ab le wit h

reg ard to th e ap pl ic at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a), we ap pl y a [d efer en ti al ] ab us e-o fdi sc r et io n st an da rd .” Uni te d St at es v. Fo rd

, 70 5 F.3 d 38 7, 38 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Fu rth erm or e, “ [t]he co ur t ha s su bs ta nt ia l la ti tu de

to de te rm in e ho w m

uc h weig ht to g i v e th e va rio us fact or s un de r § 35 53 (a).” Id

. (q u o t i n g U n i te d St at es v. Ru el as -Me nd ez, 55 6 F.3 d 65 5, 65 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )); se e

al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Park er, 76 2 F.3 d 80 1, 81 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ W he re [a ] di st ric t

co ur t in im

po si ng a se nt en ce m ak es an in di vi du al iz ed as se ss m en t ba se d on th e fact s

pr es en te d, ad dr es si ng th e de fen da nt ’s pr of fere d inf or m at ion in its cons id erat io n of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, su ch se nt en ce is no t un reas on ab le

. ” (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (in te rn al

qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ).

The tra ns cri pt o f P et ers on ’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng sh ows 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. The co ur t m ad e sp eci fic refe ren ce to th e

na tu re of th e cri m e an d th e ch arac te ris ti cs of th e de fen da nt

, st at in g th at Pet ers on

“ co ld ly cal cu la te d” ta ki ng “ ad va nt ag e of es pe ci al ly vu ln erab le wom en ” pl aced un de r

hi s su pe rv is io n. The co ur t al so st at ed th at it im po se d th e se nt en ce to refl ect th e

se rio us ne ss of Pet ers on pr ey in g on th es e vu ln erab le wom en , “ to pr om ot e res pe ct fo r

th e la w, to pr ov id e fo r jus t pu ni sh m e n t

, t o affo rd bo th sp eci fic an d ge ne ral

de te rren ce,” an d to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic ag ai ns t Pet ers on

. Acco rd in gl y , we fin d th at th e
di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y e x erci se d it s di sc ret io n in weig hi ng th e va rio us § 35 53 (a)

fact or s an d th at Pet ers on ’s s en te nc e is no t su bs ta n t i ve ly u nr eas on ab le

. See Park er,

76 2 F .3d at 8 12

.

-7

-II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m th e d is tri ct co ur t i n a ll res pe ct s.

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

-8

-