NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0256n.06 No. 08-4017 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. L ON NI E RA Y KERE STE S, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

T H E N O R T HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

B EF OR E: SUH RH EI

NR I CH , M CK EA GU E, and GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. GRI FF I N, Circuit J udg e. Def endant L onnie Ray

Ker estes appe als hi s 87-month sentence of imprisonment as unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), asse rting that the district court violated his Six th Amendm en t rig ht to a jury trial bec ause it found, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, that he ha d eng ag ed in a pattern of prohibited sexual conduct under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b) (2007), whic h supported a f ive-leve l sentencingenhanc ement. Ke res t es ar g ues that the district court’s f actua l f i n d ing inc rea sed his penalty under the United States SentencingGuidelines and there fore require d a jury ’s deter mination bey ond a re asonable doubt. We disagr ee a nd aff irm. I. On Fe bruar

y 26, 2008, Ker estes plea ded g uilty without an ag ree ment to on e count of
trave ling to eng ag e in illicit sex ual conduc t with a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 2423(b). TheNo. 08-4017

United States v. Kere

stes

- 2 - prese ntence repor

t (“PSR”) assesse d Ker estes’s ba se off ense le vel at 24 pursua

nt to U.S.S .G. § 2G1.3, “Prohibi ted S exual Conduct with a Mi nor,” and calc ulated his criminal history at Categ ory I (base d on zero criminal history points). The PSR rec ommended a two-leve l upw ard a d justment pursuant to § 2G1.3(b) (3) be cause Ker est es u s ed a computer while committing the of fense and a
tw o- le ve l up wa

rd a dju stm e nt for ob st ru c tin g jus tic e purs ua nt t o § 3C1 .1 . T he PSR a lso

rec ommended a five-le vel enhanc ement to K ere stes’s adjusted offe nse level pursuant to § 4B 1.5(b) be c a us e the re c or d ind ic a te d that he ha d e ng a g e d in a lon g -t e rm inc e stu ou s re la tio ns hip wi th h is minor daug hter. The PSR ’s ca lculat i o n s y i el d ed a total offense level of 33 a nd an advisory Guidelines ra

ng e of 135- 168 months of imprisonment. Ke re ste s f

ile d o bje c tio ns to t

he PSR’ s u

pw ard a dju stm e nt f

or ob str uc tio n o f j us tic e a nd

its

re c omm e nd e d d e nia l of

a do wnwa rd a dju stm e nt f

or his a c c e ptan c e of

re sp on sib ili ty . H e a lso ob je c te d to the a

pp lic a tio n of § 4B 1. 5( b) be c a us e the State of

Pe nn sylva

nia did no t pr os e c ute him for a sex crime, and he de nied any previous sexual misconduct with minors. The district cour

t conducted K ere stes’s sentenc ing on Aug ust 11, 2008. The c ourt overr uled his § 4B1.5(b) -base d objections but sustained his objections re gar d i n g the upwar d adjustment for obstruction of j ustice and the downward adjustm ent for his acc eptanc e of responsibility . Ba sed on these ruling s, the distri ct co u rt calc ulated a ba se off ense le vel of 24, § 2G1.3, a two-leve l upward adjustment for using a computer to commit the offe nse, § 2G1.3(b)( 3), a f ive-leve l enhanc ement for eng ag ing in a

pattern of

prohibited sexual conduct with a minor, § 4B 1.5(b), a nd a thre e-le vel reduc tion for ac cepta

nce of responsibility , § 3E1.1, yielding a total offense level of 28 and anNo. 08-4017

United States v. Kere

stes

- 3 - a dv iso ry Gu ide lin e s r ang e of

78 -9 7 mont

hs of imp ri so nme nt. I n d oin g so , th e dis tr ic t c ourt e xpre ssl y

re je c te d K e re ste s’ s argume nt t hat it s f a c tua l f ind ingpurs ua

nt t o § 4B 1. 5( b) wa s unc on sti tut ion a l in light of Apprendi. The district cour

t se n t en ce d Ke restes to 87 mont hs of imprisonment and a life time of supervised r elea se. Ke restes timely appea ls. II. Ke re ste s r a ise s a

so lit ary iss ue on a pp e a l: w he ther the dis tr ic t c ourt vio la te d h is Si xth Amendment rig ht t o a jury trial when it found, by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, that he ha d

e n g a g e d in a pattern o f

p r o h ib it e d

s e xu a l c o n d

u c t w it h a mi n o r u n d e r U

. S. S. G

. § 4 B 1

. 5 ( b )

. We revie w his constitutional claim de novo. Un ite d Sta te s v . R ob e rg

re , 565 F.3d 1005, 1012 ( 6th Cir. 20 09 ); United States v. Gates , 461 F.3d 703, 708 (6th Cir. 2006) (“This court re views a [prese rved] constitutional challeng e to a se ntence de novo .”). Se c tio n 4 B 1. 5( b) (2 00 7) of the Un ite d St a te s Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s p ro vid e s: (b) In any

case in which the defenda nt’s instant offense of convic tion is a covere d sex crime, neither §4B1

. 1 nor subsec tion (a) of this guideline a

pplies, and the de fe nd ant e ng a g e d in

a patte rn of a c tiv ity inv olv ingpr oh ibi te d s e xua l c on du c t: (1) The offe n s e l ev el s hall be 5 plus the offe nse leve l determined un d e r C h a

p t e r s T w o an d T h r e e . H o w e v e r , i f t h e r e s u l t i n g of fe ns e l e v e l i s l e s s t h anle ve l 22 , the of fe ns e le ve l sh a ll b e le ve l 22 , de c re a sed by the n

umb e r o f l e ve ls c or

re sp on din g to a

ny a pp lic a ble adjustment from §3E1.1. (2) The criminal hi story cate g ory shall be the c riminal history cate g ory deter mined under Chapte r F our, Part A. Th e Gu ide lin e a

pp lic a tio n n ote s f

or § 4 B 1. 5( b) (2 00 7) pr ov ide :No. 08-4017

United States v. Kere

stes

- 4 - (B ) De termination of Pattern of Activity .— (i) In Gene ral.—F or purpose s of s u b s ec t ion (b), the de fenda nt eng ag ed in a pattern of a ctivity involving prohibited sexual conduct if on a t le a st t

wo se pa ra te oc c a sio ns , th e de fe ndant e ng a g e d in prohibited sexual conduct with a minor. (ii) Occ asion of Prohib i t ed Sexual Conduct.—An occa sion of prohibited sexual conduct may be conside red f

or p u rposes of subsection (b) w ithout reg ard to whe ther the oc casion (I ) occ urre d during the cour se of the instant off ense; or ( I I ) re sulted in a conviction for the conduct that oc curr ed on that occ asion. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b) , cmt. n.4 (B )(i) a nd (ii) (2007). Be fore the district cour t ap p l i ed § 4B1.5( b), it discussed its reliance on two psy cholog ical repor ts submit ted for sen t encingpurposes – a psy cholog ical examination of Ker estes’s minor d au g hter, pre pare d by

J ohn A. Reinhardt, a

licensed psycholog ist and Ph.D., and a psy cholog ical examination of Kere stes himself, prepa red by J oseph S heris, a licence d psy cholog ist and M.A. The dis tr ic t cou rt ma de the fo llo wi ngstate me nts a t th e se nte nc inghe ari nga ft e r r e vie wi ngthe re po rt s: Now, as f ar a s Chapter 4 e nhance ments – and I understand thi s i s

– ex cu s e me – I wa nt t o s ay pr ob a bly the ma in a

rgume nt, the ma in ob

je c tio n, I have re a d bo th r e po rt s in d e ta il, that is, by Dr . Rei nh art and a lso by Mr . Sh ari s. Ihave take n a loo k at th is case as a w hole. Nothing should ever be rea d as an island so to speak or on its own. There has to be c ontext to what has ha ppen ed i n t h is case, a

nd for pur

poses of the Court’s finding whether

there should be a [§ 4B1.5(b) ] enhance ment for pattern of activity under the Guidelines. Now, Mr. Ke restes’ daug hter was evaluated. I would have to a g ree with Mr. Sulli van this is a very

g ood repor

t. I have se en countless number s of re ports in my twelve y e ars on the be nc h. Th is is a g oo d on e . I a lso too k a loo k a t Mr

. Sha ri s’ re po rt

. L e t’ s st art wi th t he dif fe re nc e :No. 08-4017

United States v. Kere

stes

- 5 - F ir st of a ll, the da

ug hte r and the mot

he r we re bo th int e rv ie we d on the fi rst rep or t. Only Mr. Ker estes wa s interviewe d by Mr. Sharis. I t does make a diffe renc e. Mr. Sha ri s d id n ot h ave th e benef it o f t a lki ngwi th t

he da ug hte r o r t

he mot he r, qu ite fra nkly

. No w, a s far a s th e fi rs t r e po rt by Dr . Re inh art , M r. Ke re ste s h a s r a ise d c on sis te ntl y the a lle g a tio ns of

a ve ry c on te nti ou s div or c e . I do n’ t do ub t that, and in h is v ie w, thi s is what has cause d the mother to ha ve the child turn ag ainst him. W e have seen that in many case s. That’s not unusual. I don’t find that convincingin this case. [The daug hter’s] repor

ts are specific , and I

am looking at the discussion part, which Ithought wa s very

rele vant, deve lopmentally appropr iate, describingvarious sexual a c ts a nd oc c ur renc es. (C hil d’ s n a me re da c te d) re po rt of on e larg e me mor

y is clinically consistent, indicative of r epor t s gi v en by children w ho experience lon g -t e rm se xua l vic tim iza tio n, and he re is w hat is c ru c ia l, e sp e c ia lly wh e n th e re is a ve ry c on te nti ou s div or c e , the state me nts pr ov ide d b y (C hil d’ s n a me re da c te d) “ did not ha ve any adult content, logic , or semantics involved, and her state ments appea r to be indicative of

an 11 y ear -old fema le.” That is very

important beca

use normally

when we have a

child being pressure d or ta lke d to, c oa c he d by a pa re nt, the re is so me thi ng in the re that r efl ect s adult influence . Idon’t find that here

. Also, her rationale for not disclosing in the past was very clea r and spe cific due to fea

r of r eprisal f

rom h er fathe r and ba sed upon her g ener al fe ar that she had of his ang er within the hom e. I will find that to be cre dible, too, beca use Mr. Ke restes himself suf fer ed some a

buse g rowing up. We usually

find that somehow and ma ny times t h at i s passed down in one way or ano the r. Th a t is c on sis te nt. An d a lso the fa c t th a t he tr ie d o r sou g ht t o h a ve se x with a 14 y ear -old [in t he pre sent ca se] is also consistent. Iwould ag ree with Mr. S ullivan and dis ag ree with Mr. Warner on the part that ther e is constituti onal violation. Clearly , the law – the Supreme Court of the United States has made clea

r that the Court ca

n make f indings; does not violate the Constitution. I t is appropriate for the Court to make finding s. There is preponder ance of t h e ev i d en ce, a nd second of

all, the Guidelines a

re advisory . They

are not mandatory . The Court has discr etion whether to acc ept the Guidelines, stay

within them, g o up, g o down, that is depart, g rant a varia nce unde r 3553( a )

. T h e Co u rt h a s b e e n g iv e n g r e a t lati tu d e to d o th a t, an d th e r e is no constitutional viol ation.No. 08-4017

United States v. Kere

stes

- 6 - T h e C o u rti s c a l l e d

u p o nt o m a k e a

f i n d i n g , a n d t h a ti s w h e t h e r u n d e r – b y a prepon d er ance of the e vidence this occurr ed, and a s we know, that means more probable than not, any

thing ove r 5-0 pe rce nt. Ido find that here

. Acc ording to Kere stes, the district court’s f actua l finding suppo rt ing its application of § 4B 1. 5( b) ’s fi ve -l e ve l e nh anc e me nt v iol a te s Apprendibeca use it increa sed his penalty under the pr e sc ri be d G uid e lin e s r ang e . Spe c if ic a lly , his a

pp lic a ble Gu ide lin e s ra

ng e (b a se d o n a

tot a l of fe ns e level of 23) was 46-57 months of imprisonment, which incre ased to 78-87 months of imprisonment (base d on a total offe nse leve l of 28) only afte r t he district cour

t eng ag ed in impermissible fac t finding . We disag ree . The ApprendiCourt held that “[o] ther than the fac t of a prior conviction, any

fac t that incre ases the pe nalty

for a crime beyond theprescribed statutory max imum must be submitt ed to a jury , and prove d bey ond a re asonable doubt.” 530 U.S. at 490 (e mphasis added) . The factual de te rm inatio n K e re ste s c omp la ins of he re , s pe c if

ica ll y , tha t he e ng a g e d in a patte rn of a c tiv ity involving prohibited sexual conduct with a minor on two se parate occ asions, aff ecte d the district court’s c alculation of his adjusted offe nse level only – it did not result in a sentence of imprisonment that w a s g re a te r t

ha n th e pr e sc ri be d s ta tut or

y ma ximumfo r h is o ff

e ns e of con vi c tio n, tr a ve lin g to eng ag e in illicit sex ual conduc t with a minor, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), which is 360 months. Since the Supreme Court decided Un i t ed Stat es v. Book er, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we have consistently

held that a se ntencingcourt may find fa ct s u s i ng a pre pondera nce- of-the- evidenc e standard while fashioning an appropriate G uidelines sentenc e. Ro be rg re , 565 F.3d at 1012 (citing United States v. Fe rguson , 4 56 F .3 d 6 60 , 6 65 (6 th Cir . 2 00 6) ; Un ite d S tat es v . W hit e , 551 F.3d 381,No. 08-4017

United States v. Kere

stes

No ta bly , K e re ste s h a s n ot att acked th e adm is si bi li ty or r eli abi li ty

of t he p sy cho lo gical repo rt s 1 them s el v es o r t he suff

iciency of the district cour

t’s fac tual finding s to support its application of § 4B1.5( b). The issue on a ppeal, a s Kere stes prese nts it, attacks on l y t h e constit utionality of the district court’s fa ctual finding under Apprendi

. - 7 - 385 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“So long as the defe ndant re ceive s a sentenc e at or below the statutory ceiling set by

the jury ’s verdic t, the district c ourt does not abridg e the de fenda nt’s rig ht to a jury

trial by loo kin g to o the r f

a c ts .

. . wh e n s e le c tin g a

se nte nc e wi thi n th a t st a tut or y ra ng e .” ); Gates, 461 F.3d at 708 (“ We [ hold] that the district court c ommitt ed no . . . Six th Amendment violation when it used a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e standa

rd” dur ing se ntencing .). Ke re ste s’ s argume nt i s f

or e c los e d by our bin din g pr e c e de nt, and we the re fo re ho ld that hi s 87-m o n t h s entence of imprisonment is not unconstituti onal under Apprendi

. See Ro be rg re , 565 1 F .3 d at 10 12 ; W

hit e , 5 51 F .3 d at 38 5; Gates, 461 F.3d at 708. III

. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m th e or de r o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

.