United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3032

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

David Charles Walker

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

 Submitted: February 10, 2014

 Filed: March 14, 2014 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

David Charles Walker pleaded guilty to attempting to transfer obscene material

to a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1470 after he made internet contact with two

undercover police officers posing as 13 and 14 year old girls and transmitted obscene

videos for the purpose of inducing them to meet and have sexual relations with him.
At sentencing, the district court1

 determined an advisory guidelines sentencing

range of 27 to 33 months in prison. Neither party objected. Walker urged a withinrange sentence. The government urged an eight to ten year sentence, a substantial

upward variance, because (i) Walker began this offense conduct two months after his

release after serving a five-year Missouri sentence “for essentially the very same

behavior,” (ii) he refused to participate in the Missouri Department of Corrections sex

offender program while serving that sentence, and (iii) he was back online contacting

an undercover police officer immediately after a warrant search resulted in the seizure

of electronic items he used to perpetrate these crimes. Government counsel argued: 

“He’s demonstrated quite clearly that there is nothing out there that we can do to

dissuade him. I think a sentence less than [the five years] he received the first time

would be clearly illogical.” Explicitly taking into account the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

sentencing factors, the district court concluded that varying upward to a 96-month

sentence was reasonable and appropriate. 

On appeal, Walker argues the district court imposed a substantively

unreasonable sentence that did not give sufficient weight to Walker’s present

recognition he needs treatment; his stated post-release plan for work, treatment,

education, and support of his family; and the likelihood he will be harshly treated by

other inmates while in prison. “We review with great deference the reasonableness

of a sentence for abuse of discretion,” including a sentence that reflects a substantial

upward variance. United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012). As

in United States v. Pickar, 666 F.3d 1167, 1169 (8th Cir. 2012), the district court’s

“decision to assign greater weight to [Walker’s] criminal history and the nature of his

offense than to mitigating personal factors was well within its wide sentencing

latitude.” It was not unreasonable for the district court to conclude that Walker’s

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-
immediate resumption of his predatory conduct after release from serving a prior

sentence warranted imposing incrementally greater punishment for this offense.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-