2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

5-6-2010

USA v. Robert Boczkowski

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 08-2093

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Robert Boczkowski" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 1391.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/1391
 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_________

No. 08-2093

_________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 v.

ROBERT BOCZKOWSKI,

 Appellant

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 

(D. C. No. 3-06-cr-00339-1)

District Judge: Hon. Richard P. Conaboy

 

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1 (a)

July 16, 2009

Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed May 6, 2010)

 

O P I N I O N

 

ROTH, Circuit Judge:

Robert Boczkowski appeals from the District Court’s judgment of sentence of 121

months imprisonment after pleading guilty to receiving child pornography, in violation of
1 

1

 We note an unexplained discrepancy concerning the sentencing range. At the sentencing

hearing, the District Court indicated that it would grant an upward departure from the

guidelines, resulting in a range of 121-151 months. But in the court's written statement of

reasons for the sentence, the court listed the range as 97-121 months. While this

2

18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because the parties are familiar with the facts,

we will describe them only as necessary to explain our decision. For the reasons

discussed below, we will affirm. 

Boczkowski attacks his sentence on two grounds. First, he argues that the District

Court erred in imposing an unreasonable sentence. We exercise plenary review of the

District Court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines. United

States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556, 570 (3d Cir. 2007) (en banc). “The touchstone of

reasonableness is whether the record as a whole reflects rational and meaningful

consideration of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Id. at 571 (internal

quotation marks omitted).

Here, the record indicates that the District Court reasonably considered and applied

the relevant § 3553(a) factors in determining Boczkowski’s sentence. Specifically, the

District Court considered both the horrific nature of the images, which caused continual

victimization of innocent children, and the favorable factors, including Boczkowski’s age,

employment history, and family background. Furthermore, the sentence was within the

guidelines range, which was 97 to 121 months. 

1
discrepancy is perplexing, it is ultimately irrelevant because Boczkowski's sentence of

121 months is reasonable whether viewed as an upward departure (based in part on the

quantity and nature of the images involved) or as a sentence at the upper end of the

guidelines range.

3

Second, Boczkowski argues that the government breached the plea agreement by

asking the District Court to impose an upward variance in the sentence. He contends that,

because the plea agreement stated that his offense involved “600 or more images,” he was

“entitled to assume that the government was not intending to seek an enhancement of

sentence because of the volume of images on his computer.” We exercise plenary review

of a claim that the government breached a plea agreement. United States v. Hodge, 412

F.3d 479, 485 (3d Cir. 2005). Plea agreements are analyzed under contract-law standards. 

United States v. Williams, 510 F.3d 416, 423–24 (3d Cir. 2007). 

Boczkowski’s argument fails because nothing in the plea agreement restricted the

government’s right to ask for an upward variance in sentencing based on the number of

images. Indeed, paragraph eleven of the plea agreement allowed the government “to

recommend a sentence up to and including the maximum sentence of imprisonment,”

which was twenty years, or 240 months, imprisonment. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment of sentence.