Opinion ID: 2663167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An Ex Post Facto Clause Issue.

Text: At sentencing, using the 1992 version of the Sentencing Guidelines, as the parties had agreed, the district court determined that his advisory guidelines range was 63 to 78 months in prison. The government urged an upward departure or variance based on aggravating factors and the victims’ psychological injury. The government noted that, at the time of sentencing, a violation of § 2423(a) was punishable by a prison term of ten years to life, and the advisory guidelines range was 262 to 327 months in prison. The district court imposed an upward variance. In the course of a lengthy explanation for imposing the statutory maximum 120-month sentence, the court stated, “The maximum sentence you can serve is 10 years, but if you committed this crime today, you would be facing a much longer sentence.” The Constitution’s ex post facto clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 3, is violated when the retroactive application of a change in the law creates “a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes.” Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 250 (2000) (quotation omitted). Roberts argues for the first time on appeal that the district court’s reference to the increased punishment he would face if he committed the crime today demonstrates that intervening amendments to the 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- Guidelines subjected him to a “substantial risk” of increased punishment. This contention is without merit. At the time of Roberts’s sentencing, there was disagreement among some circuits whether the ex post facto clause barred applying subsequent amendments to the now-advisory Guidelines. The Supreme Court resolved that conflict in Peugh v. United States, concluding that “[a] retrospective increase in the Guidelines range applicable to a defendant creates a sufficient risk of a higher sentence to constitute an ex post facto violation.” 133 S. Ct. 2072, 2084 (2013). However, the court explained, although “application of a higher Guidelines range violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, sentencing courts will be free to give careful consideration to the current version of the Guidelines as representing the most recent views of the agency charged by Congress with developing sentencing policy. . . . The newer Guidelines [will be] one of many reasons a district court might give for deviating from the older Guidelines.” Id. at 2087 (emphasis in original). Here, the district court applied the Guidelines the parties agreed were in effect at the time of Roberts’s offense in determining his advisory range, and then it considered the current Guidelines in determining the final sentence. Thus, the court perfectly anticipated the decision in Peugh. There was no error, much less plain error.