NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL- TEXT P UBLICA TION File Name: 12 a00 48n. 06 Nos. 1 0-51 09/ 10-5 115 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT

UNITE D ST AT ES O F AMERICA, Plaint if f -Appe llee,

v

. ROBERT JOHNSON, JR., Def end ant -Appe llant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL FROM T HE UNIT ED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT FOR T HE W EST ERN DIST RICT OF KE NTUCKY

Bef ore: DAUGHTRE Y, COOK, a nd KET HLEDGE, Circuit Jud ges.

PER CURIA M. Def end ant Robe rt John son app eals as subst ant iv ely unre ason able the sent ence of 320 mo nth s imp osed by the district court, f ollowi ng John son’s guilty plea s to charges of transp ortat ion, transf er, and posse ssion of child porn ography. W e f ind it

nece ssary to va c a t e t he sent ence and rema nd f or re-sente ncing, base d on the district court’s decision to, in ef f ect, “s p li t t he dif

f eren ce” bet w een the guideline range

recom me nde d in the prese nte ncing repo rt and that propo sed by the def end ant , resulting in an arbitrary sente nce f or w hich n o a dequa te ra tiona le was state d.

FA CTUA L A ND PROCEDURA L BA CKGROUND

In 200 1, John son engaged in online com mu nicatio ns w ith som eon e he believed to be a 14-year-old gir l. In reality, howev er, tha t individual w as a specia l agent w ith theNos. 1 0-51 09/ 10-5 115

Unites S tate s v. Jo hnso n Fede ral Bure au of Investigation me rely posin g as a t een age f em ale. Over the course of
tw o mo nth s, John son transm itted ten ima ge s o f child porn ography to the supp osed
tee nager and eventua lly traveled to me et “her” in an agreed-up on locatio n in orde r to
engage in sexual activities. Upon his arriv al at the d e s ig n ate d me eting place , f ede ral
aut horities arrested Jo h n s o n

. He later plea ded guilty to charges of transm itting child
porn ography over the intern et and to using a f acility i n interstat e comm erce to attem pt to
persu ade a m inor to en gage in sexual act iv ity . He ultim ate ly received a prison sen ten ce of 63 mo nth s f or tho se of f ense s and w as also sent ence d to an add itiona l tw o y ears on supe rv ised re lease

.
Sho rtly af

ter serv ing his prison term a n d c o mp leting his period of supe rv ised release , John son esta blished online com mu nicatio n w ith a perso n he believed to be a 13-
y ear-old gir l. But , once again, his intern et correspo nde nt turne d out to be an unde rcov er agent, w ho received f rom the def end ant num erou s porn ographic pho tograph s d e p ic t in g sexual acts involv ing y oun g, prep ube scent gir ls, as w ell as a porn ographic pho to and v ideo of the def end ant himself

. Execution of a fe dera l search w arrant f or Johnso n’s r eside nce resulte d in the conf iscat ion of the def end ant ’s com put er, w hich cont aine d som e 500 ima ges of

child p orno gr aph y

.

B a s e d u p o n tha t evidence, a f ede ral gr and jury returne d a f our-cou nt indictm en t against John son, charging him w ith transp orting child porn ography in intersta te com me rce by com put er, 18 U.S.C. § 225 2A(a)(1) (coun t 1); using a com mu nicatio n f acility to transf er

- 2 -Nos. 1 0-51 09/ 10-5 115

Unites S tate s v. Jo hnso n obsce ne ma terial to a min o r u n d e r t h e age of 16, 18 U.S.C. § 147 0 (coun t 2); and
posse ssion of child porn ography, 18 U.S.C. § 225 2A(a)(5) (coun t 3). T he indictm ent also

s o u gh t f orf eiture of all prop erty belo nging to John son tha t w as “used or inten ded to b e used to com mit or to prom ote the com mission of the of f ense ,” 18 U.S.C. § 225 3(a) (coun t 4).

W ithou t the ben ef it of a plea agreem ent , John son plea ded guilty to each of the three charged of

f ense s and also agr eed to the forf eiture count o f the indictm ent . Becau se the def end ant had previously bee n c o n vic t e d of transp orting child porn ography, he f aced
statu tory sent ence s of 15 to 40 y ears on coun t 1, 18 U.S.C. § 225 2A(b)(1); up to ten y ears

on coun t 2, 18 U.S.C. § 1 470 ; an d 1 0 to 20 years on coun t 3, 18 U.S.C. § 2 252 A(b)(2).

T he United Sta tes Proba ti o n O f f ice prep ared a prese nte nce repo rt f or the district
court tha t assigne d J o h n s o n a criminal history ca tegory of III and a tota l of f ense level o f 41. As a result, the prob ation of f icer recom me nde d tha t John son be sent ence d to a prison
term of 360 mo nth s to life

. G ive n t he statu tory ma x imu m sent ence s f or the of f ense s of convict ion, howev er, John son actu ally f aced a ma x imu m United Sta tes Sen ten cing Guide lines sen t e n c e o f 840 mo nth s rathe r tha n life , even if all three ma x imu m prison
sent ence s w ere o rdered to run co nsecu tiv ely to ea ch o the r.

At John son’s sent encin g hea ring, the district judge imp osed the statu tory ma x imu m sent ence s of 120 mont hs fo r transf erring obsce ne ma terial to a minor less tha n 16 y ears of age, and 240 mo nth s f or a secon d conviction involv ing posse ssion of child porn ography.
- 3 -Nos. 1 0-51 09/ 10-5 115

Unites S tate s v. Jo hnso n In assessin g pun ishm ent f or tr ansp orting child porn ography by com put er in intersta te

com me rce, howev er, the district judge sent ence d John son to 320 mo nth s in prison, a f ull 40 mo nth s b e lo w the Guide lines range iden tif ied in the prese nte nce repo rt. He also directe d tha t the three sent ence s be serv ed concu rrently and f urthe r orde red the f orf eiture requeste d in coun t 4 of the indictm ent

. John son now challen ges the subst ant iv e

reaso nab lene ss of the prison term , cont end ing tha t the district court “g ave too mu ch w eight
to his prior conviction” and tha t the sent ence is “g reate r tha n nece ssary to com ply w ith the
purp ose [of

18 U.S.C. § 3 553 (a)].”

DISCUSSIO N

W e rev iew a district court’s imp osition of a sent ence f or reaso nab lene ss, using the def eren tial abu se-of -discretion stan dard

. See United Sta tes v. Pea rce , 531 F.3d 374 , 384 (6th Cir. 200 8). Such rev iew “has bot h a proce dura l and a subst ant iv e com pon ent .” United Sta tes v. Erpe nbe ck , 53 2 F.3 d 4 23, 43 0 (6t h Cir. 2008 ) (citing Gall v. Un ited Sta tes , 55 2 U.S. 38, 51 (200 7)). Here, ho w ever, John son purp orts to cha llenge on ly the substan tiv e

reaso nab lene ss of

the 32 0-mo nth sen ten ce.
Despite the f act tha t the def end ant couch es his app ellate challe n ge in term s of subst ant iv e reaso nab lene ss only, prior decision s of the United Sta tes Sup reme Court and of this court ma ke clear the interrelat ed nat ure of the proce dura l and subst ant iv e

c o m pon ent s of any sent ence rev iew

. Notab ly , a rev iew f or subst ant iv e reaso nab le n e s s

- 4 -Nos. 1 0-51 09/ 10-5 115

Unites S tate s v. Jo hnso n “w ill, of course , take into accou nt the tota lity of the circumsta nces, includin g the ex ten t of
any v ariance f rom the Guid elines range.” Gall , 55 2 U.S . at 51

.

But , w e cann ot evaluate the extent of the v ariance f rom the Guide lines range in this

case beca use the district court never actu ally calculat ed the app licable Guide lines range. At t he sent encin g h earing, the def end ant dispu ted the recom me nda tion of the prob ation of f icer tha t his of

f ense level shou ld be increase d f iv e levels pursu ant to section 2G2 .2(b)(5) of the United States Sen ten cing Guide lines f or engaging “in a pat tern of activity involv ing the sexual abu se or explo itation of a min or.” If the f iv e-level increase w ere f oun d to be
app licable, John son f aced a Guide lines sent ence bet w een 360 mo nth s and life in prison. If the increase w ere to be f ou n d in app licable, howev er, the def end ant w ould have f aced

a Guide lines sent ence bet w een 235 and 293 mo n t h s , a dif f eren ce of as mu ch as ten
y ears. Rathe r tha n resolve the dispu te def initiv ely, howev er, the district judge simp ly relied
upo n th e f ollowi ng invi ting logic:

T he w ay I w ould look at it to try to be f air to every one in this case is w e have [a criminal history cate gory ] tha t’s clear, tha t’s III. T he only real question on the g uide lines is the f iv e poin ts. So the of f ense level could be as low as 36 and as high as 41. If we – since it’s a deb ata ble poin t, if w e too k the mid ra nge and ma de it a 38, y ou still have a guideline range bet w een 2 9 2 a n d 365

. If y ou too k the mid range of tha t, it’s a bou t 320 mo nth s, w hich is – at w hich p oint he’ll be 70 y ears old. T o me , tha t’s a long sent ence and tha t’s a tou gh sent en c e and a reaso nab le sent ence

. T here ’s prob ably som e discretion to go a little low er and certain ly discretion to go higher. I think the sent ence at 320 m ont hs is a bou t – is long an d rea sona ble.

- 5 -Nos. 1 0-51 09/ 10-5 115

Unites S tate s v. Jo hnso n T he di s t rict judge’s oth erw ise adm irable desire to achie v e f airness in sent encin g John son is read ily app aren t f ro m re a d in g the transcript of the sent encin g hea ring. Unf ortun ate ly , the selectio n of a starting Guide lines range in this case can only be describe d as arbitrary. T he def end ant and the go ve rn m e n t could not agree on w het her John son “engaged in a pat tern of activity involv ing the sexual abu se or exploitation of a min or” and , thu s, w het her he dese rv ed t h e f ive -lev el increase called f or in section 2G2 .2(b)(5) of the Guide lines. Rathe r tha n resolvi ng the f actu al dis p u t e bef ore him , the district judge simp ly iden tif ied a sent encin g range mid w ay bet w een the ranges advocate d by the opp osing partie s and the n arbitrarily picked a sent ence length mid w ay bet w een the

ma x imu m and min imu m end s of tha t arbitrarily -selecte d range. Conse quently, as the

rev iew ing court, w e are lef t to specu late as to w het he r t h e sent ence selecte d here is an

u nexplaine d downw ard v ariance f rom a level- 41 sent encin g range or an une x pla in e d upward v ariance f rom a level- 36 range. Nor can our conf usion be alleviated by ope ration of any rebu ttab le presu m p t io n

. Altho ugh “w e ma y app ly a rebu ttab le presu mp tion of

reaso nab lene ss to sent ence s w ithin the Guide lines,” United Sta tes v. Pea rce , 531 F.3d at 384 , as not ed abo v e, the district court did not iden tif y the app ropriate Guide lines range in this ca se.

T he def end ant argues tha t the sent ence imp osed is subst ant iv ely unre ason able in large part beca use “too mu ch w eight w as giv en to § 2G2 .2(b)(5).” In f act, the sent ence is

unre ason able beca use too little w eight w as giv en the Guide lines provisi on. Had the district
court res o lve d t h e question of the app licability of the section in f avor of John son, f or - 6 -Nos. 1 0-51 09/ 10-5 115

Unites S tate s v. Jo hnso n instan ce, the relevant Guide lines sent encin g rang e wo u ld have bee n 235 -293 mo nth s. W ithou t question , the sent encin g judge could still have increase d the def e nda nt’s
pun ishm ent abo v e the 293 -mon th ma xim um and imp osed the sam e 320 -mon th prison
term

. Ide ntif

y ing the app licable Guide lines range to include a ma x imu m sent ence well belo w the imp osed pun ishm ent , howev er, w ould have required the court to explain in det ail the reaso ns f or the v ariance

. By arbitrarily selectin g a sent encin g range tha t had no direct correlation to f acts bef ore t he court, the sen ten cing judge in this case ma naged to avoid the explana tion tha t would allow us to revi ew the se nte nce’s re ason able ness.

John son f u rt her cont end s tha t his sent ence w as gr eat er tha n w as nece ssary to add ress the criminal activity involv ed. In large part, his argume nt is base d upo n his assertio n tha t ma ny of the enh ance me nts tha t raised his sent encin g range to at least level 36 are consid eratio ns tha t are prese nt in alm ost all child porn ography cases. T he district ju d ge recogniz ed tha t oth er courts have inde ed agreed tha t the specif ic of f en s e chara cteristics listed in section 2G2 .2 unn ecessa rily in c re a s e min e-run sent ence s f or

reaso ns alm ost alw ays prese nt in any such case or f or reaso ns beyond the cont rol of the individual def end ant

. See , e.g

. , United Sta tes v. Hanso n , 561 F. Sup p.2 d 100 4 (E.D. W is. 200 8); United Sta tes v. Burns , No. 07 CR 556 , 200 9 W L 361 744 8 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 200 9). He the n explained , howev er, tha t app lication of the section 2G2 .2 enh ance me nts are “v ery f act-driven” and tha t “part of the ration ale [he has] used in oth er cases f or sent encin g less tha n the Guide lines has been base d on the diff eren ce between w hat the g uide line range might say and w hat the particu lar cond uct w as in the case in f ront of [him ].” T here is thu s - 7 -Nos. 1 0-51 09/ 10-5 115

Unites S tate s v. Jo hnso n

no supp ort f or the argume nt tha t the district court f ailed to consid er the poss ib ility tha t John son’s G uide lines ran ge w as a rtif icially inf lated

.

T he district court app ropr ia t e ly consid ered argume nts tha t specif ic of f ense chara cteristics unn ecessa rily increase d John son’s of f ense level. T he court did not abu se its discretion , howev er, in rejecting som e of tho se cont e ntion s in lig ht of the f acts of this

case. Never the less, the district court still f ailed to rule upo n the app licability of one f iv epoin t enh ance me nt and , instea d, rand om ly i ncrea sed the def end ant ’s of f ense level in an

e f f ort to f ind a mid dle gr oun d bet w een tw o com pet ing se nte ncing calculat ions. Such a n app roach to sent encin g is not the prod uct of reaso n but of hap pen stan ce and , unf ortun ate ly , short-circuits every oth er discussion regarding the reaso nab lene ss of the
sent ence in th is case.

CONCLUSION

For the reaso ns set out abo v e, w e cann ot conclu de tha t the sent ence imp osed upo n the def end ant w as reaso nab le. W e the ref ore VACAT E John son’s sent ence and REMAND this m atte r to t he district cou rt f or resen ten cing.

- 8 -