Opinion ID: 4527476
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantive and Procedural Reasonableness

Text: Fowler also challenges the substantive reasonableness1 of his sentence, arguing that the district court considered an improper factor in sentencing Fowler to a 36-month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release.2 Specifically, Fowler argues that the district court considered an unsubstantiated allegation that Fowler had molested a child when it decided to vary upwards and sentence him to 36 months. Because we find that the district court did not 1 At the outset, we note that members of our Court disagree over whether challenging the district court’s consideration of an improper factor is a substantive or procedural challenge. Compare United States v. Cabrera, 811 F.3d 801, 808-09 (6th Cir. 2016) (“[C]onsideration of an impermissible factor is more properly considered a procedural, not substantive, error.”), and United States v. Malone, 503 F.3d 481, 484 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[C]onsideration of an impermissible factor—it seems to us—more appropriately involves the procedural reasonableness prong . . . .”), with United States v. Hunt, 521 F.3d 636, 649 (6th Cir. 2008) (“A district court imposes a substantively unreasonable sentence . . . when it bases the sentence on impermissible factors . . . .”), and United States v. Ferguson, 456 F.3d 660, 664 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[A] sentence may [be] substantively unreasonable where the district court . . . bases the sentence on impermissible factors . . . .” (internal alterations and quotations omitted)). This issue is ripe for en banc review but not in this case, as we are able to conclude on the merits that the district court did not consider an impermissible factor in sentencing. 2 For clarity, the plea agreement, including the appellate waiver discussed above, only applies to the sentence for the possession of child pornography charge and not the sentence for the supervised release violation. Nos. 19-3070/3071 United States v. Fowler Page 12 consider this unsubstantiated allegation, we affirm the district court’s 36-month sentence for Fowler’s violation of his supervised release conditions.
Both procedural and substantive reasonableness claims are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Jeter, 721 F.3d 746, 755-57 (6th Cir. 2013). Whether substantive or procedural, a district court abuses its discretion when it considers an impermissible factor in sentencing. Id. at 757; Cabrera, 811 F.3d at 808-09. “Even if a district court relies on a large number of relevant factors, we must vacate and remand for resentencing if the court considers an impermissible factor in calculating a defendant’s sentence.” United States v. Van, 541 F. App’x 592, 596 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Recla, 560 F.3d 539, 545 (6th Cir. 2009); Hunt, 521 F.3d at 649).
We find that the district court did not consider an impermissible factor when it sentenced Fowler. “Our jurisprudence postulates the ability of judges to dismiss from their minds, in reaching decision, offers of evidence excluded by rulings after hearing arguments on admissibility of that evidence.” United States v. Brooks, 355 F.2d 540, 542 (7th Cir. 1965). In United States v. Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit addressed a case with similar facts to those in our case. 765 F.2d 1393 (9th Cir. 1985). In Gonzales, the defendant argued that the district court relied on references to two arrests for sex offenses that were included in the PSR, but the Ninth Circuit found that, after Gonzales objected, the district court explicitly stated that it did not consider those offenses in its sentencing decision. Id. at 1396. Gonzales argued that the court should not take the district court at face value, but the Ninth Circuit responded, “We must take such statements at face value because if we do not do so, we will have abandoned our reliance on the good faith of our district court judges.” Id. at 1397. Here, Fowler objected to the inclusion of an uncorroborated statement in a supervised release violation report from October 3, 2018, which alleged that Fowler had admitted to molesting a young girl and becoming sexually aroused while in contact with a two-year-old girl. When he objected, defense counsel expressed concern as to whether “[the statement] was going Nos. 19-3070/3071 United States v. Fowler Page 13 to be heavy on the court’s mind.” The district court sustained the objection and replied to defense counsel that it had not weighed heavily on the court’s mind. The district court also asked defense counsel if he wanted the statement stricken since defense counsel had neglected to do so, and, when he then moved to strike, the district court struck the statement from the violation report. Later, the district court stated, in discussing why the guidelines were not appropriate: [T]hey stop being appropriate in this case because this is your second time abusing children. And I don’t care if you ever touched them. I only care that you fantasized about them, you victimized them. You’ve done things that you and I will never fully understand as a result of your access to child pornography. And you did it while on supervision after this hard 82 months. The district court continued, “You flaunted the opportunities for treatment. You continued to abuse drugs. And, most importantly, you continued to abuse children through your pornographic materials.” Finally, in what Fowler contends is evidence that the district court considered this allegation, the district court stated: I don’t see any reason why I should put society at risk. What I do now I think is necessary to promote respect for the law and protect society, primarily the children who cannot speak for themselves. I’ve stricken that language. It’s unsubstantiated, that which suggests you molested a child. But truthfully, I’ll never know. I’ll never know. And you’re not required to tell me. Immediately before this statement, the district court explained that it was exercising its discretion to vary upwards to the statutory maximum for the supervised release violation: 36 months to run concurrent to the sentence for the possession of child pornography conviction. While the timing of this statement may appear troubling when viewed out of context, we read it differently than Fowler. The district court actually asked if defense counsel wanted the statement struck and then struck it. Further, the district court made it clear that it did not weigh heavily on its mind and that it did not care if Fowler had ever touched a child because he had already contributed to the victimization of children by consuming and possessing child pornography. Finally, the district court re-iterated that it had struck the language and did not know if the statement was even true. We will not “abandon[] our reliance on the good faith of our district court judges,” and we take the district court’s statements here at face value. Nos. 19-3070/3071 United States v. Fowler Page 14 See Gonzales, 765 F.2d at 1397. Because we find that the district court did not consider an impermissible factor and Fowler makes no other challenge to the substantive or procedural reasonableness of his sentence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Fowler to a 36-month sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release.