Court Opinion

ID: 9961728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 17:00:40.756241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:44.283713
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

                              _______________________

                                    No. 23-1504
                              _______________________

                           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                           v.

                                 ZACHARY BOSH,
                                            Appellant
                              _______________________

                    On Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Pennsylvania
                         District Court No. 2-21-cr-00439-001
                    Chief District Judge: Honorable Mark R. Hornak
                             __________________________

                     Submitted under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
                                   April 17, 2024

              Before: HARDIMAN, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges

                                 (Filed: April 19, 2024)

                               _____________________

                                     OPINION*
                               _____________________

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
SMITH, Circuit Judge.

       Zachary Bosh entered an open plea of guilty to production of a visual depiction of

a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The

District Court imposed a sentence of 210 months of imprisonment and a lifetime term of

supervised release. Bosh appeals his sentence, specifically the imposition of the lifetime

term of supervised release. We will affirm.1

       Bosh contends that the Court erred because it did not provide an explanation as to

why a lifetime period of supervised release is “sufficient but no more than necessary to

fulfill the purposes of sentencing.” Bosh Br. at 5. Because Bosh did not object after the

Court imposed its sentence, we review for plain error. United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759

F.3d 253, 255 (3d Cir. 2014) (en banc).

       After reviewing the sentencing colloquy, we conclude that the District Court

committed no error, plain or otherwise. The sentencing colloquy, which thoroughly

complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, belies Bosh’s

argument. Before pronouncing sentence, the District Court advised that the sentence to

be imposed “is to be sufficient to fulfill the purposes of sentencing, but at the same time,

it should not be greater than necessary to do that.” A78. After identifying several of the

purposes of sentencing, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C), the District Court

stated that, upon release from prison, Bosh would “still be a young man.” A82. With

1
 The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction
under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

                                               2
that in mind, the Court then explained that a life term of supervised release would deter

both Bosh and others from engaging in similar conduct. And the Court further declared

that the period of supervision “is both necessary and sufficient to adequately protect the

public.” A84. Before addressing the other conditions of his term of supervised release,

the District Court added that the evidence of record showed that “there’s a real and

substantial risk of danger to the community and to other people, particularly minors, that

can only be mitigated, reduced, [or] addressed . . . by supervision.” A89-90.

       In short, the sentencing transcript confirms that the District Court thoughtfully set

out its reasons for imposing a lifetime term of supervised release. We see no basis for

disturbing the District Court’s judgment. We will affirm.

                                             3