### In the



# United Stat es Court of Appeal s For the Seventh Circuit

No. 14-1559

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v.

C H R I S T O P H E R M I C H A E L H O R T O N , Defen dant-Appellant.

Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the S outhern Di stric t o f Il l i noi s. No. 3: 13 -cr- 30 04 2 — David R. He rndon
, Judg e.

A R G U E D O C T O B E R 9, 2014

— D E C I D E D O C T O B E R 21, 2014

Before B A U E R

, E A S T E R

B R O O K , and K A N N E , Circ uit Judges.

P E R C U R I A M

. Chris topher Hort on, a kar ate ins tr uctor who used hi s i Phone to fi lm hi mself sexually molesti ng three of hi s y o u n g s tu d e n t s

, p l e a d e d g u i l ty t o s i x c o u nt s o f s e x u a l l y e x p l o i t i n g
a chi ld. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). Hort on’s gui deli nes range w as l i f e , s u b je c t to a statuto ry m a xi m u m s e n te n c e of 3 0 y e a rs on e a c h

c o u n t

. S e e i d

. § 2 2 5 1 ( e )

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i m p o s e d a 9 0

- y e a r p r i s o n sentence, whi ch Hort on arg ues i s sub stanti v ely unreasonable.2 No. 14-1559

B e ca use Hort on has fai led to rebut the presumpti on of reasonableness afforded to hi s wi thi n-gui deli nes sentence, w e affi rm.
D u r i n g a 9

- m o n t

h p e r i o d w

h i l e H o r t o n w

a s e m p l o y

e d a t T h r e e Ti ger s Kar ate i n Bellevil l e , I lli noi s, Hort on created 37 videos d e p i c t i n g h i m s e l f e n g a g i

n g i n s e x u a l l y e x p l i c i t c o n d u c t w i t h t h r e e
o f h i s m a l e s tu d e n t s ( a g e s 6 , 7 , an d 1 0 ) , a

n d an o t h e r v i d e o s h o w i

n g h i m s e l f tr yi n g to convin ce another student (age 7) to di splay hi s genitals

. Hort on created the videos i n v arious places : hi s home, the kar ate studi o, a publi c park, and the San Antonio home of one the v i cti ms.
Hort on, t he n 20, w as li ving wi th hi s mother i n Hi ghland, Illi noi s when, i n early 2013, she notic ed chi ld porno gr aphy on hi s phone. She told her boyfriend, who repo rt ed Hort on to the p o l i c e o n F e

b r u a r y 1 1

. L a t e r t

h a t d a y p o l i c e v i s i t e d H o r t o n ’ s h o m e and spok e wi th hi s mot her , who confirmed that she had seen

a n i m a g e o n h i s p h o n e o f H o r t o n p e r f o r m i n g o r a l s e x o n a 1 0

- y e a r
old boy

. The poli ce then w ent to the kar ate studi o and arr ested Ho rt on. Duri ng a poli ce i nterv i ew , Hort on admi tte d that he

s e xu a l l y a

b u s e d t h r e e m i n o r b o y s w h o a t t e n d e d t h e k a r a t e s tu d i o and us ed hi s phone to fi lm the acts, w hi ch i nclu ded oral sex.
The i nv esti gation rev ea l e d h ow Hort on gain ed acces s to the vic tim s outsi de of c l a s s a n d c onvi nced them to engage i n sexual

a c ti vi ty

. H o r t o n s u c c e e d e d i

n g e t t i n g t h e v i c t i m s a l o n e b y e a r n i n g their parent s ’ tr u s t a n d of ferin g priv ate kar ate lessons , at whi ch he molested the st ud e nt s i n their own home or i n the kar ate

s tu d i o’ s b a c k ro om w h i l e ot h e r s tu d e n ts w ere i n th e m a i n s tu d i o ta ki n g l e s s on s

. H or to n c on vi n c e d on e of the vic ti m s to to u c h h i s , Hort on’s, priv ates by promis i ng to buy hi m a Ni ntendo 3- DS.No. 14-1559 3

There w ere a l so tex t fi les on Hort on’s cell phone contai ni ng

m e s s a g e s h e h a d d r a f

t e d i n s t r u c t i n g t h e b o y s o n s e x

, m a s t u r b a t i o n , and org asms ; encouraging t hem t o send hi m pic tures of their peni ses; and givi ng them code w or ds to use in t e x t mess ages to avoi d detection by thei r par ents.
H o r t o n e n t e r e d an o p e n p l e a o f g u i l t y t o f i v e c o u n t s o f s e x u a l l y exploiti ng a mi nor

, see 18 U

. S

. C

. § 2251(a), and one count of
atte mpti ng to do the same, see 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e).
A p r obation offi cer prepar ed a presentence repo rt a nd calc ulated a tot al offense lev el of 43 (wh i ch w ould ha ve be e n 48 but for the cei li ng at 43, see U.S.S .G. ch. 5, pt. A, cmt. n.2) and cri mi nal h i s to ry c a te go ry of I, yi e l d i n g a gu i deli nes range of li fe. But the offense carries a 30-y ear statutor y maxi mum sentence f o r e a c h c o u n t , s o t h e s t a t u t o r y c e i l i n g r e p l a c e s H o r t o n’ s g

u i d e l i n e s

r a n g e

. S e e 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 2 5 1 ( e )

. A n d w h e n t h e r e a r e m u l t i p l e c o u n t s of co nv ict i on, as there are here, the gui deli nes i nstruct the

s e n t e n c i n g c ou rt to i m p os e m a xi m u m a n d c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c e s to achi ev e what the guid eli nes s entence w ould hav e been bu t f or th e s ta tu to ry m a xi m u m

. S e e U. S. S. G

. § 5 G 1

. 2 ( d ) ; Un it e d St a t e s

v

. V eysey , 334 F .3d 600, 60 2 (7 th Ci r

. 2003); United States v

. Thava raja, 740 F .3d 253, 357 n.3 (2d Ci r

. 2014); United States v

. Lewis, 594 F .3d 1270, 1275–76 (10th Ci r . 2010).
At hi s lawy er’s request , Ho r ton w as ev aluated before sentenci ng by cli ni cal psychologis t Dr

. Dani el Cueno, who conduc ted a sexual offender asses sment. Duri ng hi s formativ e y ea r s, Hort on recounted to Dr

. Cueno, hi s mother w or ked as
a s tr i p p e r a n d e s c or t a n d w ou l d l e a v e p or n og raphi c magazi nes,
sex toy s, and d ru g paraphernalia strewn aro und the house. Hi s father w as as an alcoholi c and drug abus er

. Hort on w atched a4 No. 14-1559

XX-rat ed movie when he w as sev en and acted out what he saw i n th e m ov i e b y h a vi n g or a l s e x w i th o t h e r c h i l d r e n

. In f i rs t gr a d e he w as forced to perfor m or al sex on a clas smate, and he began havin g consens ual intercourse when he w as 12. Accordi ng to Dr

. Cueno, the “ro ots for [Horto n’s] d iffic ulti es can be tr aced back t o a chi ldhood wh e r e he w as sexualized at an e arly age, had li ttle stabi li ty

, and w as rais ed by a dru g a bu sing, stripper/esc or t mother who prov i ded hi m wi th li tt l e , i f any sta bil ity .” In Dr

. Cueno’s opin i on, Hort on w as a hi gh ris k for

r e o f f e n d i n g b e c a u s e h e h a d “ n o r e a l c o n c e p t o f w h a t i s a p p r o p r i a t e

s e x u a l i t y ” an d “ n o c o n c e p t o f l i

m i t s , ” a n d r e c o m m en d e d t r e a t m e nt for his “psychologic al and sexual di ffi culti es.”
Whi le aw ai tin g sentenci ng, Hort on penned a 35-page lette r t o t h e c o u r t i n w h i c h h e t r i e d t o e x p l a i

n w h y h e s e x u a l l y a s s a u l t e d hi s studen ts.
I thi nk I di d what I di d becau se

... I di dn’t know why

or what made me the w ay I w as or am. I needed

someone li ke me, to see i f they w ould gr ow to be li ke

me one day

. My theor y w as, i f they w ere i ntro duced
to i t at a certain age, w ould they too , be sexually confus ed, or share si mi lar desi res i n the future.

He recounted the “horr i ble peo ple” who su r r ounded him i n hi s y outh, asserted that he w anted t o be cured of hi s d ys f u n c ti on a l s e xu a l c om p u l s i on s, and expr essed reg ret th a t h e

w as “too smart” f or c ou n s eli ng—i n whi ch he partici pated from

a g e 2 t o 1 8

— t o h a v e b e e n s u c c e s s f u l

. H e a l s o a s s e r t e d t

h a t i t w o u l d b e “ ri d i c u l ou s ” to i m p ri s on h i m f or d e c a d e s b e c a u s e , h e i n s i s t e d , mass murderer s get lighter sentences.No. 14-1559 5

Both parties arg ued for a gui deli nes sentence but di sputed what length w ould be appropr i ate. Hort on sought a 2 5 -y ear

s en t e n c e , p o i n t i n g t o h i s “ h i g h l y u n u s u a l an d e x t r e m e ” u p

b r i n g i n g
a n d the prospect that hi s y ou th w ou l d a l l ow h i m to b e n e f i t f ro m tr eatment whi le i ncarcerated; i f tr eatment proved i neffec tiv e, he added, the government could petiti on to st a y hi s release and i n i ti a te ci vil commi tment proceedings. See 18 U.S.C. § 4248. Th e g o v e r n m e n t s o u g

h t 6 0 t o 7 0 y e a r s , w h i c h it b e l i e v e d w a s n e c e s s a r y t o p u n i s h H o r t o n f

o r e x p l o i t i

n g h i s p o s i t i o n o f t r u s t an d d e s t r o y i n g the li v es of four y oung chi ld re n a n d th e i r f a m i l i es, and to assu re th a t a d a n ge ro u s s e x of f e n d e r w ou l d n ot b e re l e a s e d i n to s oc i e ty

. T h e p r o s e c u t o r a l s o p r e s e nt e d v i c t i m i m p a c t s t a t e m en t s w r i t t en by the relat i v es. The fami li es recounted that the boys suf fered f ro m ni ghtmare s, sleepless ni ghts, a n ge r , b e d w e tt i n g, a n d p oo r concentration at sch ool, and asked the judge to lock up Hort on for t he rest o f hi s li fe.
The dis tr i ct court sentenced Hort on to 90 y ears. The court

a c kn ow l e d ge d H o r t o n ’ s a b n o r m a l c h i l d h o o d b u t c o n c l u d e d th a t aggr av atin g f actor s “w ei gh h eavily , heavily again st hi m.” For

e xa m p l e , th i s w a s n ot a ty p i c a l c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y c a s e , th e c ou rt

e x p l a i n e d , b e c a u s e o f t h e “ p r e d a t o r y n a t

u r e ” o f H o r t o n’ s r e p e a t e d
acts i n soli ci tin g hi s y oung students for sexual encounters. H or to n ’s c a s e , th e ju d ge c on ti n u e d , w a s “ on e of th e m os t s e ri ou s and hei nous” he’d s een i n hi s 15 y ears on the bench: [T] he statement that th e D e fendant made i n hi s lette r that one of the reasons why he did this w as t o seek
out people that he could see i f th e y w ere li ke hi m and

see i f they w ould gr ow to be li ke him one day

. [The prosecutor ] used the phrase “an exper i ment”, and i t6 No. 14-1559

i s horr i fyi ng to thi nk that somebody w ould use li ttle

c h i l d re n a s th ou gh th e y w e re s om e s or t o f p e t r i d i s h e s
or test tube s to s e e i f th e y c ou l d tu rn ou t to b e l i ke hi m b e c a u s e o f w h a t h e w e n t t h r o u g h , k n o w i n g h i s t e r r i

b l e backg r o und. And that i s

... an i ndi cati on that the D e f e n d an t i s a v e r y d an g e r o u s p e r s o n

. A n d d an g e r o u s , I w ould suggest, li ke the gui deli ne computati on, off the chart.
O n a p p e a l H o r t o n c o n t e n d s t h a t h i s 9 0

- y e a r w i t h i n
- g u i d e l i n e s sentence—eff ecti v ely a li fe sentence—exceeds the bounds of

reason. H e i n s i s ts th a t h i s s e n te n c e d oes not adequately accoun t for hi s uns table upbri ngi ng, whic h i nclu ded li ving i n an “e n vi ro n ment dev oid of appropr i ate boundari es reg ardin g sex and chi ldren.” Hi s relat i v e y outh also should hav e been take n i nto accoun t, he adds, becau se he w as sti ll maturin g and w ould gain better i mpuls e contro l wi th time.

Becaus e Hort on’s gui del ines range w as li fe, any pris on

s e n t e n c e i n e f f e c t w ou l d b e p re s u m p ti v e l y re a s on a b l e o n a p p e a l

. See United States v

. T

anner , 628 F .3d 890, 908 (7th Ci r

. 2010). “T o
sus tain the presumpti on, a di stric t court need prov ide only a justif i cati on for its sentenc e adequate to allow for meani ngful

a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w an d t o p r o m o t e t

h e p e r c e p t i o n o f f

a i r s e nt e n c i

n g

. ” United States v

. Pilon, 734 F .3d 649, 656 (7th Ci r

. 2013) (i nternal quotat i on marks and citati on omi t t e d ). A nd t he presumpti on

m a y b e r e b u t t e d o n l y b y s h o w i

n g t h a t t h e s e nt e n c e i s u

n r e a s o n a b l e when measu red agai nst the factors in18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); this i n c l u d e s d e m on s tr atin g that the di stric t court fai led to prop e rl y

c on s i d e r m i ti ga ti n g f a c t o r s

. S e e U n it e d St a t e s v

. Si ng le t o n, 5 8 8 F

. 3 d 497, 501 (7th Ci r

. 2009); United States v

. Mykyt iuk, 415 F .3d 606, 608 (7th Ci r . 2005).No. 14-1559 7

Hort on has not demonstrate d that hi s de facto li fe sentence i s unreasonable. Although a sentence that i s effecti v ely for li fe “i s not to be o rder ed li ghtly ,” w e hav e upheld such sentences where the sentenci ng judge recog ni zed “ t he li kelih ood of a defendant’s dea t h in pris on, but conclu ded that other factors

w arr anted the particu lar sentence.” United States v

. V all ar , 635 F

. 3 d 2 7 1 , 2 8 0 ( 7 t

h C i r

. 2 0 1 1 ) ( i

n t e r n a l q u o ta ti on m a rk s a n d c i t a t i o n omi tte d); see United States v

. Noel, 581 F .3d 490, 492–93, 500–01 (7th Ci r

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( 8 0-y ear sentence reasonable for produci ng chi ld porno gr aphy where defendant di d not molest v i cti m); United States v

. Chapman, 694 F .3d 908, 915–16 (7th Ci r

. 2012) (40-y ear sentence reasonable for 46-y ear -old defendant who produced

c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h

y )

. H e r e , t h e d i s t r i c t c ou r t a p p r o p r i a t e l y w

e i g h e d H orton’s age and di ffi cult upbri ngi ng, s e e 1 8 U. S. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , again st the “ext remely serio us nature of thi s cri me” and the vulnerabi li ty of the vic tim s, see id. § 3 5 5 3 (a )(1) , (a)( 2)(A); New Y ork v

. Ferber

, 458 U.S. 747, 758–60 & n.9–10 (1982), the need to p ro te c t th e p u b l i c f ro m a d a ngero us chi ld molester , see 1 8 U. S. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A)
, ( C ) , a n d th e a v a i l a b i l i ty o f s e x

- o f

f e n d e r t r e a t m e n t i n p ri s on , see id

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D )

. An d th ou gh H or to n w ou l d h a v e preferr ed the di stric t co ur t t o hav e giv en more w ei ght to hi s dysfun cti onal chi ldhood, the court had the di screti on to assi gn i t less w ei ght than the other § 3553(a) factors. See United States

v . Smith, 721 F .3d 904, 908 (7th Ci r . 2013).
A F F I R M E D

.