# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 7- 33 46

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

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

Pla in ti ff - App el le e

v.

Co li n J . Mic ha el

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 25 , 20 18
Fi le d: Nov em

be r 30 , 20 18 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, KELL Y, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Co li n Mi ch ael ap pe al s th e 96 -m on th te rm of im pr is on m en t im

po se d up on hi m

aft er rev oc at io n of hi s fiv e-year te rm of pr ob at io n. B e c a u s e w e co nc lu de th at th e

di st ric t co ur t co m

m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r in fai li n g to co ns id er th e Sen te nc in g

Co m m is si on ’s po li cy st at em en ts reg ard in g pr ob at io n rev oc at io ns an d, on th is reco rd

, th e err or is no t h arm le ss , we rem an d fo r res en te nc in g.I. Ba ck gr ou nd

On May 12

, 20 16

, pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t, Co li n Mi ch ael pl ed gu il ty to

po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4)

. The of fen se

ha s a st at ut or y m ax i mu m te rm of im pr is on m en t of 12 0 m on th s. At se nt en ci ng , th e

di st ric t co ur t fo un d pu rs ua nt to th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (“ Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s” or “ U.S.S.G.”) th at Mi ch ael ’s of fen se le ve l was 30 an d th a t he was in

cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y I. The co ur t de te rm in ed th at th e a pp li cab le ad vi so ry

se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge was 9 7 t o 1 20 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

The pr os ecu to r reco m

m en de d a te rm of im

pr is on m en t of 40 m on th s. Mi ch ael

req ue st ed a se nt en ce of pr ob at io n. Two peo pl e, who ha d pro fes si on al rel at io ns hi ps

wit h Mi ch ael

, te st ifi ed at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. The fir st wit ne ss was Dr. St ev en

Pet ers on , a ge ne ral an d fo ren si c ps y ch ia tri st

, who fo ren si cal ly ev al ua te d Mi ch ael at

th e req ue st of de fen se co un se l. Dr. Pet ers on in te rv ie wed Mi ch ael

, who was 35 y ears

ol d, fo r fo ur an d a ha lf ho ur s in Octo be r 20 14

. He al s o i nt erv ie wed Mi ch ael ’s

pa ren ts

. In co nd uc ti ng hi s ev al ua ti on , Dr. Pet ers on ad m in is te red ps y ch ol og ic al te st s

“ to ad dr es s [Mi ch ael ’s] fu nc ti on in g fro m an al te rn at iv e pe rs pe ct iv e an d jus t face -to

face pre se nt at io n.”

Bas ed on hi s i nt erv ie ws an d t es ts , Dr. Pete rs on op in ed th at :

Co li n ha s si gn ifi can t de ve l o p m en ta l di ffi cu lt y cal le d Asp erg er's Sy nd ro m e, whi ch ha s n o w b een recl as si fie d as on e of th e au ti sm

sp ect ru m di so r de rs

. And whi le he ha s th e ab il it y to di sc ern rig ht fro m

wro ng , he al so ha s si gn ifi can t di ffi cu lt ie s wit h so ci al reci pr o c i t y, an d
ba si cal ly hi s p s y ch os ex ua l an d ps y ch ol og ic al de ve lo pm en t pl at eau ed

aro un d e arl y

tee ns , and so th at affec ts hi s ju dg m en t. 1

Sen t. Tr. p . 18 (Nov . 17 , 20 16 ). 1

-2

-Dr. Pet ers on te st ifi ed th at hi s refe ren ce to earl y te en s m ean t 12 –o r 13 –years ol d an d

ad de d th at Mi ch ael be ha ve d in so m e way s l ik e a ch il d t ha t was 9– or 10 –years ol d.

Exa m pl es of th e m or e im m at ur e be ha vi or no te d by Dr. Pet ers on in cl ud ed co ll ect in g

di e cas t cars , co ll ect in g sh ot gl as se s, an d rea r r a ng in g VHS ta pe s an d DVDs

co m pu ls iv el y up to 20 ti m es a m on th

. Dr. Pet ers on de sc rib ed Mi ch ael ’s s oc ia l

de ve lo pm en t as co ns is te nt wit h a pe rs on of la te pr e-ad ol es cen t or ad ol es cen t ag e. He

al so no te d Mi ch ael ’s su sc ep ti bi li ty to m an ip ul at io n an d hi gh le ve l of de pe nd en ce on

st ru ct ur e fro m

hi s fa m il y

.

Pri or to se nt en ci ng , Mi ch ael ha d be en act iv el y in vo lv ed in a tre at m en t pr og ram

at Hop e Harb or fo r cl os e to on e y ear. Hop e Harb or , whi ch ha d be en in ex is te nc e fo r

2 3 y ears , was de sc rib ed at se nt en ci ng as on e of th e la rg es t se x of fen de r tr e a t men t

pr og ram s in eas te rn Kan sa s. The tre at m en t pr og ram Mi ch ael pa rti ci pa te d in ha d two

co m po ne n t s: in di vi du al ps y ch ot he rap y se ss io ns an d gr ou p ps y ch ot he rap y

. Dr.

Bas co m W

. Rat li ff, who ho ld s a Ph .D. in cl in ic al so ci al wor k

, w a s t h e di rect or of

as so ci at es at Hop e Harb or , an d faci li ta te d th e se x of fen de r tre at m en t pr og ram at Hop e

Harb or , te st ifi ed th at Mi ch ael st art ed tre at m en t at the cl in ic in Decem be r 20 15

. Dr.

Rat li ff sa w Mi ch ael week ly. H e h a d a n t i ci pa te d th at Mi ch ael wou ld co nt in ue th e

tre at m en t pr og ram fo r a m in im um of twel ve ad di ti on al m on th s. Dr. Rat li ff ex pl ai ne d

th at du rin g t reat m en t a p art ic ip an t ca n h av e a l ap se in jud gm en t. Par t o f th e reas on gi ve n by Dr. Rat li ff fo r th e ex te nd ed pr og ram was be cau se he ex pe ct ed l a ps es to

ha pp en , es pe ci al ly wit h pe op le in vo lv ed in po rn og rap hy. W he n a la ps e in jud gm en t

ha pp en s, t he is su e is ad dr es se d wit h t he off en de r an d i t b eco m es pa rt o f pr ev en ti on pl an ni ng . Accor di ng to Dr. Rat li ff, whe n th e act iv e car e p or ti on of t he tre at m en t i s

co m pl et ed

, pa rti ci pa nt s in th e pr og ram who ha ve be en co nv ic te d of a cri m e co nt in ue

on in th e aft er ca re p ro gr am un ti l t he ir p eri od of p ro ba ti on or p aro le ex pi res

.

Dr. Pet ers on ex pl ai ne d at se nt en ci ng th at a y ou ng pe rs on wit h th e so ci al de la y s typic al ly as so c i a te d wit h Asp erg er synd ro m e is at in crea se d ris k fo r ob se ss iv e

pr eo ccu pa ti on wit h th in gs on t h e I n te rn et

. Thi s ob se ss io n can le ad a pe rs on to

-3

-po rn og rap hy an d ch il d po rn og rap hy. Dr. Rat li ff de sc rib ed Mi ch ael ’s pa rti ci pa ti on at

Hop e Harb or as “ act iv e,” m ean in g he co m pl et ed al l as si gn ed act iv it ie s an d ex erci se s

an d ke pt a jou rn al th at he sh ared wit h th e gr ou p. Co n t i n u e d pa rti ci pa ti on in th e

tre at m en t pro gr am at Hop e Harb or cau se d Dr. Pet ers on to be li ev e th at Mi ch ael was

at a lo wer ri sk of r eci di vi sm

.

Upo n co ns id erat io n of th e pa rti es ’ reco m m en da ti on s an d “ co ns id erab le

co ns id erat io n to th e te st im on y of th e[] two wit ne ss es ,” th e di st ric t co u r t i m po se d a

fiv e-year te rm of pr ob at io n wit h de ta il ed co nd it io ns an d $2 ,50 0.0 0 in res t i t u t i o n to

be pa id du rin g th e pr ob at io na ry te rm

. The co ur t va rie d fro m th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng

gu id el in es ran ge on th e gr ou nd s th at it was “ th e be st so l u ti on fo r [Mi ch ael ’s]
Asp erg er’s pr ob le m an d m en ta l s t a t us .” The co ur t ex pl ai ne d: (1 ) th e gu id el in es

in ad eq ua te ly add res se d M ic ha el ’s con du ct rel at in g to th e ch arg e an d “ in ad eq ua te ly

di ffer en ti at es be twee n gr ad ie nt s of Sect io n 22 52 -8 ,” an d (2 ) th e fed eral pe na l syste m

is no t in a po si ti on at th is ti m e to ho us e in m at es , li ke Mi ch ael

, wit h A s p e rg er synd ro m e an d a li m it ed m en ta l cap ac i t y. I n co nc lu si on , th e co ur t fo un d th at th e

pr ob at io na ry se nt en ce was “ a reas on ab le se nt en ce fo r pu ni sh m en t, de te rren ce an d to

se rv e th e en ds of ju st ic e.”

On Sep te mb er 11

, 20 17

, Mi ch ael was arre st ed on a warra nt is su ed at th e

req ue st of Mi ch ael ’s su pe rv is in g p r ob at io n of fic er ba se d on al le ge d vi ol at io ns of

co nd it io ns of pr ob at io n. The pe ti ti on al le ge d th at Mi ch ael vi ol at ed co nd it io ns rel at ed

to : (a) po ss es si on of m at eri al s in vo lv in g po rn og rap hi c/ ero ti c or se xu a ll y ex pl ic it

co nd uc t; (b ) pa rti ci pa ti on in s e x of fen de r co un se li ng ; (c) us e of a co m pu te r or

el ect ro ni c de vi ce wit h on li ne acce ss wit ho ut th e pr io r ap pr ov al of th e pr ob at io n

of fic er; an d (d ) un tru th fu l res po ns es to qu es ti on s as ke d by th e pr ob at io n of fic er. The

pr ob at io n of

fic er’s in ve st ig at io n ap pe ars to st em fro m an swe rs gi ve n b y Mi ch ael

du rin g a po lygrap h t es t t ha t was pa rt o f Mi ch ael ’s sex off en de r th erap y

.

-4

-M i c h ael ’s cas e was ran do m ly as si gn ed to a di ffer en t jud ge fo r pr oc eed i n g s

rel at in g to th e pr ob at i o n v i o la ti on s. Mi ch ael ad m it te d to each of th e vi ol at io ns

co nt ai ne d in th e pe ti ti on

. The pr os ecu to r arg ue d at th e rev oc at io n he ari ng th at th e

co ur t sh ou ld rev ok e Mi ch ael ’s pr ob at io n an d im po s e th e 40 -m on th te rm of

im pr is on m en t th at he or ig in al ly req ue st ed be c a u s e Mi ch ael was no t am en da bl e to

tre at m en t an d he po se d a ris k to th e pu bl ic

. Defen se co un se l pl ead ed wit h th e jud ge

no t to ig no re th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at th e in it ia l se nt en ci ng he ari ng reg ard in g

Mi ch ael ’s m en ta l il ln es s, no te d th at th e g ui de li ne ran ge in th e rev oc at io n ta bl e was

th ree to ni ne m on th s, an d req ue st ed th at Mi ch ael be gi ve n a se nt en ce of ni ne m on th s’

im pr is on m en t wit h th e rei ns ta te m en t of su pe rv is io n t o a ll ow M ic ha el to pa rti ci pa te

in ad di ti on al tre at m en t p ro gr am s t ha t wer e av ai la bl e.

The jud ge ex pr esse d so m e un cert ai nt y ab ou t th e sp eci fic “ m en ta l il ln es s” be in g

rai se d by de fen se co un se l. Afte r Mi ch ael in fo rm ed he r of h i s A s p e rg er synd ro m e

di ag no si s in 20 14 an d hi s lo ng -te rm co un se li ng wit h a ps y ch ol og is t who ha s act ed as

hi s “ li fe co ach ” si nc e se ve nt h g rad e, th e co ur t re sp on de d.

In lo ok in g a t t he pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep or t, it d oe s s et for th th at
Mr. Mi ch ael ha s be en se ei ng Ju dy M oo re si nc e ap pr ox im at el y ag e 12

,

an d I do n't se e th e di ffer en ce it 's m ad e in hi s ab il it y to refr ai n fro m be in g

at tra ct ed or to st op fro m act in g ou t on hi s im pu ls es to vi ew po rn og rap hy

an d c hi ld po rn og rap hy.

The co ur t th en reci te d ev id en ce th at su pp or te d th e se nt en ci ng jud ge ’s de ci si on

to pl ace Mi ch ael on pr ob at io n an d co nc lu de d “ wit h 20 /2 0 hi nd si gh t th at was th e

wro ng as se ss m en t.” The co ur t in te rp ret ed th e vi ol at io n i n t h e c as e as at te m pt ed

po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy. The jud ge be li ev ed th a t M i c h a e l “ kn ows in hi s

he art he was vi ewin g ch il d po rn og rap hy, jus t was n’t cau gh t.” Afte r art ic ul at in g th es e

r e a s o n s , th e jud ge im

po se d a se nt en ce of 96 m on th s, whi ch was m or e th an twi c e

wha t t he pro se cu to r rec om m en de d. W hi le th e se nt en ce im po se d c on st it ut ed an 87

-

m on th up ward va ria nc e fro m th e gu id el in e ran ge , it was a on e-m on th va ria nc e fro m

-5

-th e lo w end of t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge as c al cu la te d a t t he ti m e o f Mi ch ael ’s

o r ig in al se nt en ci ng

. The co ur t at tri bu te d th e on e-m on th va ria nc e to Mi ch ael ’s

“ ch arac te ris ti cs ” an d l ack of c riminal hi st or y

.

II

. Dis cus si on

Mi ch ael ad va nc es two arg um en ts on ap pe al : ( 1 ) t he co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly err ed

b y fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ba si s fo r th e se nt en ce, an d (2 ) th e se nt e n c e

im po se d i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le . W e co ns id er ea ch in tu rn

.

At th e rev oc at io n he ari ng , i n de te rm in in g th e ap pr op ria te se nt en ce, th e co ur t

rel ie d on th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e se nt en ci ng ran ge th at was cal cu la te d at Mi ch ael ’s

in it ia l se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. The pr os ecu to r req ue st ed th e sa m e se nt en ce, an d no te d he

wou ld no t ob

ject if th e co ur t im

po se d a hi gh er se nt en ce on rev oc at io n. Mi ch ael as ke d

th e co ur t to co ns id er th e rev oc at io n ta bl e se t fo rth in Ch ap te r 7 of th e Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s. In Mi ch ael ’s cas e, th e ad vi so ry rev oc at io n se nt en ci ng gu i d e l i n e ran ge

was a te rm of im

pr i s o n men t of th ree to ni ne m on th s. Mi ch ael reco m m en de d th e

im po si ti on of a sen te nc e o f ni ne m on th s i n c us to dy.

In or de r to an al y ze Mi ch ael ’s fir st arg um en t, w e be gi n wit h th e se nt en ci ng

op ti on s av ai la bl e to th e di st ric t co ur t. If a de fen da nt vi ol at es a co nd it io n of pr ob at io n,

18 U.S.C. § 3 56 5( a) set s fo rth th e av ai la bl e o pt io ns : 2

(1 ) co nt in ue [th e de fen da nt ] on pr ob at io n, wit h or wit ho ut ex te nd in g th e

te rm or m od ifyin g o r en la rg in g t he co nd it io ns ; o r

(2 ) rev ok e th e se nt en ce of pr ob at io n an d res en te nc e th e de fen da nt un de r

su bc ha pt er A.

18 U.S.C. § 35 65 (b ) pr ov id es fo r m an da to ry rev oc at io n in ci rcu m st an ces no t 2

ap pl ic ab le in th is cas e.

-6

-Su bc ha pt er A, am on g ot he r th in gs , se ts fo rth th e fact or s a co ur t is to co ns id er

in im po si ng a se nt en ce. In th e cas e of a pr ob at io n vi ol at io n, th e co ur t is sp eci fic al ly

di rect ed to co ns id e r “t h e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es or po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by th e

Sen te nc in g C om m is si on .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(4 )(B)

.

Und er 28 U.S.C. § 99 4( a)(3 ), th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on ha s is su ed po li cy

st at em en ts ap pl ic ab le to pr ob at i o n an d su pe rv is ed rel eas e rev oc at io ns

. The

Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on el ec t e d to de ve lo p a si ng le se t of po li cy st at em en ts fo r

pr ob at io n an d su pe rv is ed rel eas e rev oc at io ns ba se d on th e de te rm in at io n th at th e

pu rp os e of su pe rv is io n fo r bo th pr ob at io n an d su pe rv is ed rel eas e “ sh ou ld fo cu s on th e

in te gr at io n of th e vi ol at or in t o t h e co m m un it y , whi le pr ov id in g th e su pe rv is io n

de si gn ed to li m it fu rth er cri m in al co nd uc t.” U.S.S.G. Ch

. 7, pt

. A(4 ). The pe rti ne nt

po li cy st at em en ts

, as co nt ai ne d in Ch ap te r 7 of th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, cl as si fie s

vi ol at io ns of pr ob at io n or su pe rv is ed rel eas e co nd it io ns in to on e of th ree gr ad es an d

th en se ts fo rth an ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge ba se d on th e gr ad e of th e vi ol at io n an d

th e d efen da nt ’s ori gi na l cr im in al hi st or y cat eg or y . U.S.S.G. §§ 7 B1 .1 an d 7 B1 .4.

A f t e r Mi ch ael ad m it te d to vi ol at in g hi s co nd it io ns of pr ob at io n, th e di st ric t

co ur t ha d th e op ti on s of co nt in ui ng hi m on pr ob at io n, or r e v o ki ng pr ob at io n an d

im po si ng an y se nt en ce th at in it ia ll y co ul d ha ve be en im po se d. Und er ei th er op ti on , th e s t a t u te req ui res th e co ur t to co ns id er “ th e po li cy st at em en ts is su ed by th e

Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on .” 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 4) (B)

. H e re, th ere is no in di cat io n

th e co ur t co ns id ered or weig he d th e ap pl ic ab le po li cy st at em en ts be fo re im po si ng th e

se nt en ce. The co ur t pe rfo rm ed no ne of th e m ech an ic al fu nc ti on s as so ci at ed wit h th e

se nt en ci ng gu id el in es or t he sen te nc in g s ta tu te . The co ur t d id no t fi nd th e gr ad e of

th e v io la ti on , as re qu ire d b y U.S.S.G. § 7B 1.1

.

The co ur t’s pr oc ed ur al erro r whe n im po si ng Mi ch ael ’s se nt en ce req ui res

rem an d. See Uni te d St at es v. Su ll iv an , 85 3 F.3 d 47 5, 48 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (co nc lu di ng

-7

-th at a co ur t’s fai lu re to su ffi ci en tl y ex pl ai n it s u p w a r d d e pa rtu re is a si gn ifi can t

pr oc ed ur al erro r req ui rin g re m an d)

.

Mi ch ael al so arg ue s th at th e se nte nc e im pose d w as subs ta

nti vely un reas on ab le

.

“ W e rev ie w a rev oc at io n se nt en ce un de r th e s a me ‘r eas on ab le ne ss ’ st an da rd th at

ap pl ie s to in it ia l se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in gs .” Uni te d St at es v. Mer riv al

, 52 1 F.3 d 88 9,

89 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). “ W e do no t req ui re a di st ric t cou rt to m ech an ic al ly li st ev ery §

35 53 (a) co ns id erat io n whe n se nt en ci ng a de fen da nt up on rev o cat io n of su pe rv is ed

rel eas e.” Uni te d St at es v. Pet rei ki s, 55 1 F.3 d 82 2, 82 4– 25 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. Howev er, “ [t]he se nt en ci ng jud ge sh ou ld se t fo rth e n o u g h to sa ti sf y th e

ap pe ll at e co ur t th at [it ] ha s co ns id ered th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d ha s a reas on ed ba si s

fo r ex erci si ng [it s] own le ga l de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y .” Ri ta v. Uni te d St at es , 55 1

U.S. 33 8, 35 6 (2 00 7) ; se e Gall v. Uni te d St a t e s , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 50 (2 00 7) (“ Afte r

se tt li ng on th e ap pr op ria te se nt en ce, [th e di st ric t cou rt] m us t adeq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e

ch os en se nt en ce to al lo w fo r mea n i n g f u l ap pe ll at e rev ie w an d to pr om ot e th e

pe rcep ti on of fai r se nt en ci ng .”). “ If th e co ur t of ap pe al s co ns id ers an ex pl an at io n

in ad e q u a t e i n a pa rti cu la r cas e, it can se nd th e cas e ba ck to th e di st ric t co ur t fo r a

m or e co m

pl et e ex pl an at io n.” Cha ve z-M eza v. Un it ed Sta te s, – – U.S. – –, 1 38 S.Ct

. 19 59

, 19 65 (2 0 18 ) (ci ti ng Mo li na -Ma rti ne z v. Uni te d St at es , –– U.S.

–– , 13 6 S.Ct

. 13 38

, 13 48 (2 01 6 ) (“ [A]ppe ll at e co ur ts ret ai n br oa d di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g

whe th er a re m an d fo r res en te nc in g i s n eces sa ry .”)).

In Mi ch ael ’s cas e, th e jud ge pr es id in g ov er th e rev oc at io n se nt en ci ng was no t

th e sa me jud ge who im

po se d th e in it ia l se nt en ce. The co ur t is m in df ul of th e

di ffi cu lt ie s th at can oc cu r whe n a cas e is reas si gn ed

. Sen te nc in g ju d g e s i n th is

pr ed ic am en t are to fam il i a r i z e th em se lv es wit h th e reco rd in or de r to en su re th at a

se nt en ce m od ifi cat io n or rev oc at io n is co ns is te nt wit h th e en ti re hi st or y of th e cas e.

W e are c o n c e r ne d th at th e reco rd do es no t de m on st rat e fam il ia rit y wit h Mi ch ael ’s

un iq ue ci rcu m st an ces an d c h a r a ct eri st ic s. Fo r ex am pl e, th ere was ex te ns iv e

te st im on y at Mi ch ael ’s in it ia l se nt en ci ng he ari ng ab ou t Asp erg er synd ro m e an d ho w

-8

-t h e i l l n es s affe ct ed Mi ch ael ’s in te ll ect ua l an d so ci al de ve lo pm en t, as well as t h e

of fen se at is su e in th is cas e an d th e li ke li ho od of th ere be in g la ps es i n ju d g men t.

W he n de fen se co un se l refe rred to Mi ch ael ’s m en ta l il ln es s as pa rt of he r se nt en ci ng

reco m m en da ti on du rin g th e pr o b a t io n rev oc at io n pr oc eed in g, th e jud ge ex pr es se d

un cert ai nt y as to whi ch m en ta l il ln es se s were pr es e n t i n M i ch ael ’s cas e. It al so

ap pe ars th at th e se nt en ce m ay ha v e be en ba se d on fact s no t co nt ai ne d wit hi n th e

reco rd . W e are un ab le to fin d e vi de nc e to su pp or t th e se nt en ci ng jud ge ’s com m en t

th at Mi ch ae l “k no ws in hi s he art he was vi ewin g ch il d po rn og rap hy, jus t was n’t

cau gh t.”

Our co nc e r n s ab ou t whe th er th e co ur t was su ffi ci en tl y in fo rm ed ab ou t

Mi ch ael ’s cas e co m

bi ne d wit h th e fai lu re to ex pl ai n it s de ci si on to im po se a se nt en ce

se ve n y ears ab ov e th e gu id el in e ran ge le av es us wit h an ev id en ti ary reco rd th at do es

no t su pp or t th e se nt en ce tha t was im po se d. Und er the se ci rcu m st an ces , we fin d th e

se nt en ce i m

po se d i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le

.

II I. Con cl us io n

The pr oc ed ur al erro r of ig no rin g en ti rel y C h a p te r 7 of th e Sen te nc in g

Gui de li ne s is no t ha rm le s s

. Th e r e co rd do es no t de m on st rat e th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co ns id ered ev id en ce reg ard in g Mi ch ael ’s m en ta l il ln es s, whi ch was a fu n d a men t al

co ns id erat io n at th e ti m e th e in it ia l se nt en ce was im po se d an d rem ai ne d an im po rta nt

pa rt of th e cas e whe n as se ss in g th e ap pr op ria te se nt en ce fo r th e pr ob at io n vi ol at io ns

. W e v acat e Mi ch ael ’s sen te nc e an d re m an d t o t he di st ric t co ur t fo r res en te nc in g.

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

-9

-