Court Opinion

ID: 9931039
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 15:00:48.676799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:19:13.096016
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10007    Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 02/08/2024   Page: 1 of 8

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10007
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       WALTER                    KENNETH                        RATHEL,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Georgia
                  D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00017-LAG-TQL-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10007         Document: 19-1        Date Filed: 02/08/2024         Page: 2 of 8

       2                         Opinion of the Court                       23-10007

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Walter Kenneth Rathel appeals his sentence of 108 months’
       imprisonment for possession of child pornography, contending
       that it was substantively unreasonable. Rathel argues that the sen-
       tence is substantively unreasonable because it is greater than nec-
       essary to achieve the sentencing factors identiﬁed in 18 U.S.C.
       3553(a). 1 We ﬁnd no merit in Rathel’s arguments and accordingly
       aﬃrm.
                                     I. Background
              In March 2021, a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)
       undercover agent monitored a Kik account previously linked to an
       individual suspected of pursuing sexual activity with minors. A Kik
       user shared a link to a group named “you.ng girls,” containing ﬁles
       with child pornography. HSI agents acquired details for an account
       associated with that link, including an email address, an IP address,
       and the name Ray Rathel. The IP address was traced back to an

       1 These factors include (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense; (2) the

       history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need for the sentence im-
       posed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
       and to provide just punishment; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the
       Guidelines range; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the need to avoid
       sentencing disparities among similar defendants who have been found guilty;
       and (8) the need to provide restitution to victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C.
       § 3553(a).
USCA11 Case: 23-10007     Document: 19-1     Date Filed: 02/08/2024    Page: 3 of 8

       23-10007              Opinion of the Court                        3

       address in Donalsonville, Georgia, where Walter Kenneth Rathel
       resided.
              In July 2021, law enforcement searched Rathel’s residence
       and found two cell phones. A forensic search of them revealed
       forty-nine images and 139 videos of child pornography, including
       videos of females that appeared to be between the ages of six and
       ten. Rathel admitted to agents that he viewed child pornography,
       was attracted to girls between the ages of ten to twelve, had paid
       for access to child pornography via the mobile app Telegram, and
       had instructed underage girls in the past to get naked on the Face-
       cast app. He also admitted that he had touched a minor’s breasts
       in the past.
             Rathel was charged with one count of possessing child por-
       nography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2), and
       subsequently pleaded guilty to that charge.
              The presentence investigation report prepared by the proba-
       tion oﬃcer calculated a total oﬀense level of thirty and a criminal
       history category of I. Based on the oﬀense level of thirty and the
       criminal history category of I, the guideline imprisonment range
       was 97 to 121 months. The statutory maximum term of imprison-
       ment was 240 months. Neither party objected.
             Rathel asked for a sixty-month imprisonment sentence.
       Based on a forensic psychological evaluation, he argued that his
       “personality and cognition” were markedly aﬀected by a stroke,
       causing “signiﬁcantly impaired” judgment and chronic depression.
       He expressed remorse for his conduct and recognized the harm to
USCA11 Case: 23-10007     Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 02/08/2024    Page: 4 of 8

       4                      Opinion of the Court                23-10007

       his family and the victims. He argued that a sixty-month sentence
       would provide adequate punishment because he was a productive
       member of society before his stroke, did not have any criminal his-
       tory, and that the sentence would allow him to obtain treatment
       while under supervision. He also argued that this sentence would
       be within the range of sentences received by similarly situated de-
       fendants.
              During the sentencing hearing, the District Court stated that
       it had reviewed the presentence investigation report, the sentenc-
       ing memorandum and attached evaluation, and the victim impact
       statements. In imposing the sentence, the court said it considered
       the Sentencing Guidelines and the § 3553(a) sentencing factors.
       The court recognized that Rathel had emotional issues and depres-
       sion and took those into account. The court then spoke at length
       about the victim impact statements, noting how the victims de-
       scribed the ongoing harm to them whenever someone views or
       shares the material, how they cannot use social media, and how
       they have been stalked and live in fear.
              The District Court stated that this was a “very serious
       crime.” Rathel not only distributed child pornography but also
       “created” it on video calls and touched girls in person. The court
       ultimately decided that despite Rathel’s emotional, mental, and
       physical health issues, these other factors “[took] this case outside
       of the realm of a variance.” The District Court sentenced Rathel
       to 108 months’ imprisonment followed by ten years of supervised
USCA11 Case: 23-10007       Document: 19-1       Date Filed: 02/08/2024      Page: 5 of 8

       23-10007                Opinion of the Court                            5

       release. Rathel objected to the substantive reasonableness of the
       sentence.
                                   II. Discussion
              On appeal, Rathel argues that his 108-month sentence is sub-
       stantively unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to
       achieve the sentencing factors identiﬁed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We
       review a sentence’s substantive reasonableness for an abuse of dis-
       cretion. United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188–89 (11th Cir. 2010)
       (en banc). “The party challenging the sentence bears the burden
       to show that the sentence is unreasonable considering the record
       and the § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Melgen, 967 F.3d 1250,
       1264–65 (11th Cir. 2020).
               “A district court abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to aﬀord
       consideration to relevant factors that were due signiﬁcant weight,
       (2) gives signiﬁcant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
       (3) commits a clear error of judgment in considering the proper
       factors.” Irey, 612 F.3d at 1189 (quoting United States v. Campa, 459
       F.3d 1121, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (Birch, J., dissenting)).
       The proper factors are set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These include
       the nature and circumstances of the oﬀense; the history and char-
       acteristics of the defendant; the need for the sentence imposed to
       protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and to
       provide the defendant with needed medical care in the most eﬀec-
       tive manner; and the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing dispar-
       ities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
USCA11 Case: 23-10007       Document: 19-1       Date Filed: 02/08/2024      Page: 6 of 8

       6                       Opinion of the Court                    23-10007

               A sentence is only substantively unreasonable if it leaves this
       Court “with the deﬁnite and ﬁrm conviction that the district court
       committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) fac-
       tors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the range of reason-
       able sentences dictated by the facts of the case.” United States v.
       Woodson, 30 F.4th 1295, 1308 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting Irey, 612 F.3d
       at 1190), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 412, 214 L. Ed. 2d 205 (2022). This
       Court has stated that “[t]he weight to be accorded any given
       § 3553(a) factor is a matter committed to the sound discretion of
       the district court.” United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739, 743 (11th Cir.
       2007) (quoting United States v. Williams, 456 F.3d 1353, 1363 (11th
       Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Kimbrough v. United
       States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007)). Indeed, a district court
       may attach great weight to any single factor or combination of fac-
       tors. See United States v. Overstreet, 713 F.3d 627, 638 (11th Cir. 2013).
       When determining the defendant’s sentence, a district court may
       consider any relevant information on the defendant’s background,
       character, and conduct. See United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371,
       1379 (11th Cir. 2010).
              Furthermore, although not automatically presumed, a sen-
       tence within the guideline range is ordinarily expected to be rea-
       sonable. United States v. Castaneda, 997 F.3d 1318, 1332 (11th Cir.
       2021). Likewise, a sentence far below the statutory maximum also
       indicates that it was reasonable. Id.
              Here, considering the totality of the circumstances, the Dis-
       trict Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rathel’s
USCA11 Case: 23-10007     Document: 19-1      Date Filed: 02/08/2024    Page: 7 of 8

       23-10007               Opinion of the Court                        7

       sentence. The court properly considered the Guidelines and the
       § 3553(a) factors, including the nature and circumstances of the of-
       fense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the need
       to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities.
               While Rathel argues that the District Court did not give
       proper weight to the mitigating factors, the court acknowledged
       the emotional, mental, and physical health issues from which
       Rathel suﬀered and stated that it considered those characteristics.
       The court also stressed the seriousness of the oﬀense conduct and
       emphasized the victim impact statements that described the ongo-
       ing harm suﬀered by the victims of electronically distributed child
       pornography. Further, as part of the defendant’s history and char-
       acteristics factor, the court considered the fact that Rathel created
       pornography by interacting with young girls via internet video
       calls and that he touched girls in person.
               Rathel’s contention that the District Court did not give sig-
       niﬁcant weight to the mitigating factors he cited regarding his his-
       tory and characteristics and lack of criminal history fails because
       the court had broad discretion to decide how to weigh these fac-
       tors. See Overstreet, 713 F.3d at 638. The court properly exercised
       its discretion to give more weight to the seriousness of the oﬀense
       conduct and Rathel’s history of physical and virtual interactions
       with young girls than to the mitigating factors Rathel cited.
              Moreover, Rathel’s 108-month sentence was within the
       guideline range and well below the statutory maximum sentence
USCA11 Case: 23-10007    Document: 19-1    Date Filed: 02/08/2024   Page: 8 of 8

       8                    Opinion of the Court              23-10007

       of 240 months, further indicating that the sentence was substan-
       tively reasonable. Accordingly, we aﬃrm.
             AFFIRMED.