Opinion ID: 1225474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: John Shuler's Sentence

Text: At sentencing, the district court determined that the base offense level for Shuler's production offenses was 32. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(a). While not disputing other enhancements, Shuler objected to the PSR's recommendation of a four-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(4) because the defendant's relevant conduct involved possessing material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence. The PSR noted that some of this material was found on the disc containing images of K.G., and near the video of M.B. Shuler argued that this material would not ... be relevant conduct for John Shuler absent further evidence he knowingly possessed it. The government argued that there was sufficient evidence of knowing possession because the material was found in the sex room of Shuler's basement. The government also noted that this four-level enhancement would only raise Shuler's total offense level by onefrom 42 to 43because the highest level under the advisory Guidelines is 43. The district court found that Shuler should be held responsible for the sadistic or masochistic images, perhaps jointly with Fiorella, and determined that his total offense level was 43, resulting in an advisory guidelines sentence of life in prison. The court sentenced Shuler to 470 months in prisonthe statutory maximum of 360 months on each count, with 110 months of the second to run consecutive to the first. The court also stated: I would note that if I erred in scoring the advisory guideline range, the Court's decision on the ultimate sentence of 470 months would be the same even without the four-level increase for ... sadistic images and other depictions of violence after considering all of the statutory factors at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A. On appeal, Shuler alters his relevant conduct argument, asserting for the first time that the district court erred in imposing the § 2G2. 1(b)(4) enhancement because the child pornography he producedvideos and photos of K.G. and M.B.were not sadistic or violent images, and the possession of sadistic images produced by others is not relevant conduct for his production offenses. As the enhancement affected Shuler's advisory guidelines sentence, this is an issue of procedural error under Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). On the merits, this appears to be an issue of first impression, raising difficult questions of whether sadistic or masochistic materials that Shuler did not produce are nonetheless relevant conduct to his production offense, either under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1), because they are acts ... that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, or under § 1B1.3(a)(2) despite the fact that § 1B1.3(a)(2) applies only to offenses for which § 3D1.2(d) would require grouping, and child pornography production offenses governed by § 2G2.1 are not grouped under § 3D1.2(d). We decline to consider these questions because Shuler did not make this argument to the district court; the error, if any, is far from plain; and in any event we can readily dispose of this issue on another ground. At sentencing, the district court explicitly stated that the ultimate sentence of 470 months would be the same even without the four-level increase for ... sadistic images and other depictions of violence. Because the Guidelines are now advisory, procedural errors in determining the advisory sentencing range are subject to harmless error analysis. Therefore, we have encouraged district courts in resolving a fact-intensive Guidelines issue to state whether its resolution of the issue affected its ultimate determination of a reasonable sentence. United States v. Vickers, 528 F.3d 1116, 1121 (8th Cir.2008). Here, the disputed enhancement only produces a one-level increase in the total offense level, and the sentence imposed by the district court, 470 months, falls within the advisory ranges for the two levels360 months to life for level 42, and life for level 43. Moreover, even if the sentence was not within this overlap, Shuler was initially charged with possession of child pornography, a count dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement, and the Guidelines expressly provide that an upward departure may be based upon conduct underlying a charge dismissed as part of a plea agreement... that did not enter into the determination of the applicable guideline range. U.S.S.G. § 5K2.21. In these circumstances, the district court's explicit statement rendered harmless any procedural error in applying § 2G2.1(b)(4). B. Shuler further argues that his 470-month sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to give adequate consideration to his personal history, including the fact that he had not been previously convicted of a sex crime. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir.2009). Substantive appellate review in sentencing cases is narrow and deferential.... [I]t will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentencewhether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines rangeas substantively unreasonable. United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) (quotation omitted). Here, the court stated that it had considered the statutory § 3553(a) factors, addressed Shuler's specific arguments for a variance, emphasized the surreptitiously produced video of victim M.B. in describing the criminal conduct, and concluded there is absolutely no basis whatsoever to vary [downward] in this case. After careful review of the sentencing record, we conclude there was no abuse of discretion and affirm Shuler's sentence.