NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 17-3484

________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

WILLIAM CHANDLER AUGUSTA

a/k/a

Guy Johnson

 William Chandler Augusta,

 Appellant

________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Crim. Action No. 1-16-cr-00082-001)

District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

October 22, 2018

Before: KRAUSE, COWEN, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: November 14, 2018)

________________

OPINION*

________________

 * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.

Appellant William Chandler Augusta appeals the District Court’s imposition of a 

60-year sentence following his conviction for child pornography offenses on the ground

that the sentence was procedurally incorrect. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.

I. Background

Because we write primarily for the parties, we set forth only those facts necessary 

to our analysis. In October 2016, Augusta pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to

multiple offenses involving the production and distribution of child pornography.1

Although Augusta’s offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines was 

well above the threshold offense level of 43 for life imprisonment, the District Court 

varied downward at sentencing to impose a sentence of 60 years’ imprisonment. Augusta 

timely appealed. 

II. Discussion2

Augusta’s singular argument on appeal is that the District Court committed plain 

error by failing to meaningfully consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. We find no 

 1 The Superseding Indictment charged Augusta with: seven counts of producing 

child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); two counts of conspiracy to 

produce child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e); one count of selling of 

children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251A(a); two counts of conspiracy to 

receive/distribute child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2); and one

count of conspiracy to publish a notice or advertisement seeking child pornography in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d). Augusta pleaded guilty to all of the offenses in that 

Indictment. 

2 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 
3

error, let alone plain error.3

 At the sentencing hearing, the District Court heard from 

Augusta’s counsel, who argued that a life sentence was not warranted in light of

Augusta’s youth; namely, that his conduct stretched back into his teenage years, that he 

himself had been a victim of sexual abuse since he was a child, and that Augusta was 

only 21 at the time of his sentencing. The District Court also heard from five witnesses 

who testified on Augusta’s behalf, including one expert witness who spoke to Augusta’s 

extremely difficult childhood and the fact that he began engaging in sexualized chat 

rooms at the age of twelve, and another who spoke to the reduced risk of Augusta

recidivating if released from custody after the 45-year minimum sentence he will serve 

on state charges. 

Before imposing sentence, the District Court specifically stated that while it

“t[ook] to heart what counsel has said and written about the youth of the offender,” it

nonetheless concluded that Augusta was “wholly culpable for the harm that he’s caused.” 

JA 291-92. Augusta claims that the District Court discounted Augusta’s young age by 

stating that “[no] matter what age this defendant is[] . . . the conduct in this case [was] 

incomprehensible.” Augusta Br. 16 (citing JA 291). To the contrary, that statement 

indicated that the District Court considered both “the history and characteristics of the 

defendant,” and “the nature and circumstances of the offense,” yet concluded that age 

 3 Because Augusta did not raise an objection to the District Court’s consideration 

of the § 3553(a) factors at sentencing, we review for plain error, United States v. FloresMejia, 759 F.3d 253, 256, 259 (3d Cir. 2014), which requires Augusta to demonstrate: (1) 

that the court erred, (2) that the error was plain, and (3) that it “affect[ed] substantial 

rights.” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997) (quoting United States v. 

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993)).
4

was not mitigating in light of the heinousness of Augusta’s crimes. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a)(1). Similarly, Augusta’s argument that the District Court failed to 

meaningfully consider “the need for the sentence imposed,” id. § 3553(a)(2), lacks force 

given that the District Court stated that it was “not prepared” to “make the determination 

that no sentence other than a life sentence would meet sentencing objectives,” JA 292, 

and that the District Court departed downward from the Guidelines sentence of life 

imprisonment on that basis. Accordingly, there was no procedural error. 

Where “the district court’s sentence is procedurally sound, we will affirm unless 

no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on [Augusta] for 

the reasons the district court provided.” United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d 

Cir. 2009). That is not the case here, considering Augusta’s conscience-shocking 

conduct and the fact that the District Court’s 60-year sentence required a significant 

downward variance to impose less than the recommended Guidelines sentence of life.

4

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the sentence imposed by the District 

Court. 

 4 Augusta does not explicitly raise a claim concerning the substantive

reasonableness of his sentence. However, even if the Court were to liberally construe his 

argument that his sentence is unnecessarily long as a substantive reasonableness 

challenge, it would fail. For the reasons previously explained, the District Court properly 

exercised its discretion “to determine the appropriate sentence in light of the particular 

circumstances of the case.” Tomko, 562 F.3d at 561 (citations omitted).