Opinion ID: 1241733
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Comparison of Hill's Offense to Other Offenses

Text: Hill also contends the district court procedurally erred by comparing Hill's prostitution offense to other offenses, namely possession of child pornography. There is no evidence the district court mistakenly conflated Hill's offense with a child pornography offense or any other offense or made erroneous factual findings with respect to Hill's conduct. See Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597 (declaring it is procedural error to select[] a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts). On the contrary, the sentencing transcript clearly reflects the district court's awareness the two offenses are not the same and Hill's victim was not a juvenile. The purpose of the court's comparison between child pornography and Hill's offense was because we don't see many Mann Act cases in federal court[,] and child pornography is the most common sex-related crime that the federal courts deal with. The court explained, [s]o I was trying to put [Hill's offense] in context and calibrate it appropriately. The court later compared Hill's Guidelines range to sentences typically imposed in credit card identity theft cases. The court also commented, You know, 5 grams of crack cocaine gets you an automatic 60 months in the federal penitentiary. The district court was not required to sentence Hill in a vacuum or disregard its substantial sentencing experience. Cf. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597-98 (observing district courts are in a better position to find facts, judge their import under § 3553(a), and make credibility determinations because district courts see so many more Guidelines sentences than appellate courts do) (citation omitted). Hill cites no authority prohibiting a district court from comparing a defendant's crime to other types of crimes in an attempt to calibrate the relative severity of a defendant's conduct and impose an appropriate sentence. Our search discloses no such authority. We therefore conclude the district court did not procedurally err, and certainly did not commit plain error, by comparing and contrasting Hill's crime and Guidelines range to other types of offenses.