Court Opinion

ID: 4695016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-06-11 21:00:34.589115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:32.891404
License: Public Domain

In the

     United States Court of Appeals
                 For the Seventh Circuit
                     ____________________
No. 20-1124
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                  v.

JEFFREY ESPOSITO,
                                               Defendant-Appellant.
                     ____________________

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the
          Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
        Case No. 1:18-CR-00109— Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge.
                     ____________________

        ARGUED MAY 12, 2021 — DECIDED JUNE 11, 2021
                 ____________________

   Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.
    BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. ě¢ȱ, convicted of mul-
ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡¢ȱ ¡ȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱof pos-
ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ȱ ȱ
prison. He appeals, ȱthat the district ȱ ǰȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ
  ȱȱn each individual count and then added to-
. Because the district court did not err ȱȱ
Espositoǰȱ ȱĜ.
2                                                     No. 20-1124

                                 I
    ¢ȱ ȱ ¡¢ȱ ȱ and abused his
adopted son from Guatemala ȱ¢ǰȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱcouple of ¢ȱ
before he turned sixteen. Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ repetitive,
ǰȱand horrific. In addition to anal and oral penetra-
tion, ȱ ȱǰ ȱȱȱȱǰȱ
ǰȱ ǰȱ¢ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ
Esposito documented his abuse in videos and ȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱonȱȱȱȱ . He had also
 ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢—hundreds of thou-
ȱȱȱȱ—¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ ȱ.
   ȱ ȱȱ ȱŘŖȱȱȱ¡¢ȱ¡Ȭ
ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ
uȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ taken ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ
  ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ
¢ǯȱEsposito ȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱ.
    Iȱȱȱȱǰȱȱdefendant’s of-
ȱȱ ȱ ȱȱśŗǰȱ ȱȱȱa maxi-
mum of 43 ȱȱȱ . Esposito had no
ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Gȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
prison, but none of the crimes ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ
victed ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ . The
probation department recommended that Esposito be impris-
oned ȱŜŖŖȱ¢ǯȱȱ ȱȱŜŘŖȱ¢ǯȱȱ
defense ȱ420 months, ȱȱ ld finish his
ȱȱ¡¢ȱŘŞȱ¢ǯȱȱȱ ȱȱ
Esposito, ȱ ȱ in his mid-fifties, a chance at release from
prison near the end of his life.
No. 20-1124                                                         3

    ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ the district court explained
  ¢ȱȱconcluded that a de factȱȱȱ ȱ
for Esposito. Then the court pronounced Esposito’s sentences,
count ¢ countǰȱȱsix 30-¢ȱȱto be served
consecutive to each other,  ȱ ¢ȱ fifteen 20-¢ȱ Ȭ
tences to be served concurrent  each other but consecu-
tive to the 30-¢ȱ ǯȱ These sentences totaled 200
¢ȱȱǯ
   ȱ  ȱ , claim the district court sen-
ȱȱ¢ǯȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ
sidered his criminal conduct, ¢, and characteristics as a
  , determined an appropriate overall punishment, and
then set the sentences for each count to equal that overall pun-
ishment.
                                 II
                                 A
    ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǯȱt the sentenc-
ȱ, the defendant ȱȱȱȱȱmethod the
court used to arrive at his sentences, alȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
clarification of the consecutive-versus-concurrent aspect of
the sentences ȱ ȱȱŘŖŖȱ¢ȱ ȱǯȱ
    The defendant contends he has raised a procedural chal-
ǰȱ ȱ  ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ See United States v. Ballardǰȱ şśŖȱ
F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v. Pennington, 908
F.3d 234, 238 (7th Cir. 2018). He ȱȱȱȱȱȬ
ȱȱȱunder ȱȱȱȱȱśŗǻǼ,
  ȱȱ“[e]¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ǯȄ
   Tȱȱubmits that the plain error doctrine un-
dȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ śŘǻǼȱ should
4                                                      No. 20-1124

appl¢ here. Plain error has three elements: the error (1) has
ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱǰȱ(2) must be
clear or obvious, and (3) must have affected the defendant’s
ȱhts. Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.
1338, 1343 (2016). ȱȱ ȱȱlain errorǰȱȱȬ
ȱǰȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ
    But ¢ȱȱȱ’s position, a ȂȱȬ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱ
ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ Id. As this court concluded in
United States v. SpeedǰȱŞŗŗȱǯřȱŞśŚȱǻŝȱǯȱŘŖŗŜǼ, ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱtions—like ȱ
ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȂȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ —ȱ £ȱ ȱ
about ȱ ȱ ȱconfused or had ¢ȱ
ȱȱ¢ǯ Id. at Şśŝ–śŞ; see also United States v. Mzembe, 979
F.3d 1169, 1173 (7th Cir. 2020) ǻȃȱȱȱȱȬ
ȱȱǰȱȃ¢ȱǵȄȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱǰȱ ǰȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¡ǯȄǼǯȱ ǰȱȱȱ’s
i¢ǰȱ ȱȱ¢ȱǰȱ ȱǱȱ
       ǰȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ
       ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ
       ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱřśśřǻǼȱ
       ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
       ȱ Ȧȱ nditions of supervised release
       ǽǵǾ
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱan
¡ȱȱ ȱthe court had calculated the consecutive
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ȱ ǯȱ
  ȱȱ¢ǰȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱ forfeiture.
No. 20-1124                                                          ś

     The defense has the better of thȱ. Esposito
ȱȱdistrict ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
  ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱǯȱȱThis
ȱ¢ȱ£ȱȱȱural error. Gall v. United
States, śśŘȱǯǯȱřŞǰȱśŗȱǻŘŖŖŝǼȱǻȃȱȱ¢ȱ¡ȱȱ
ȱȄǼǲȱsee also Pennington, 908 F.3d at 238 (chal-
ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȂȱ¡ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱal error). Esposito claims
the district court ȱ¢ȱȱadherȱȱǰȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ ǯȱ
   ȱȱǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱde novo Esposito’s chal-
ȱȱȱǯ
                                 B
    Esposito ȱȱdistrict court should have determined
his correct overall punishment and then conformed the sen-
tences on the individual counts to achieve that total. He relies
on the text of ǯǯǯ ǯȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǰȱ ȱȱȱrelevant part:
   (b)     … the court shall determine the total punish-
           ment and shall impose that total punishment on
           ȱȱǰȱ¡ȱȱȱ¡ȱ ȱ
           ȱ¢ȱ ǯ
           …
   (d)      ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ
           ȱȱ¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱ
           total punishment, then the sentence imposed on
           one or more of the other counts shall run con-
           ¢ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ
           produce a combined sentence equal to the total
6                                                    No. 20-1124

           punishment. In all other respects, sentences on
           ȱȱȱȱ¢ǰȱ¡ȱȱȱ
           exȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ ǯ
    Esposito also cites United States v. De la TorreǰȱřŘŝȱǯřȱŜŖśȱ
(7th Cir. 2003), ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ I¢, a
ŗśŗ-month sentence ȱȱfor the ȱ¢ȱȱ
¢ȱȱǰȱȱ ȱa 60-month concurrent
sentence for the distribution ȱ  count. Id. at 607.
Due to Apprendi v. New Jersey, śřŖȱǯǯȱŚŜŜȱǻŘŖŖŖǼǰȱȱ¡Ȭ
mum sentence for the ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱŜŖȱ
moǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŗśŗ-month sentence ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱa ȱ ȱ¢ȱ¡ǰȱȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ  ȱ Guidelines
ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŗśŗ-month sentence. Id. at 607–08. The
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ the defendant’s sentence to 71
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱs and 60 months on
ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ Id. ȱ Ȭ
ment appealed.
    This court reversed the district court in De la Torre. We ex-
plained that the purpose of the Guidelines is to determine the
ȃȱ Ȅȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ Id. 609–11.
ȱ¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
the GȱȱȱȱǯȱId. This holds true
even in cases like De la Torre, ȱat ȱȱȱȱȱ
offense ȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱ¡ǯȱId. Of course,
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȬ
¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǻǼȱȱȱ Ȭ
lines explains, the sentences for other counts can be set, con-
¢ȱȱ¢ǰȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ Id.
No. 20-1124                                                        7

See also United States v. Griffith, ŞśȱǯřȱŘŞŚȱǻŝȱǯȱŗşşŜǼ (con-
ȱthe same issue as in De la Torre).
    Esposito’s ȱ here is technical, and it imports a
¢ȱ that the Guidelines do not require. If, before
ȱȱȱȱcount ¢ count, the district
court had stated ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
  ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢—rather than mer¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
total ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ—then, per Es-
posito, the district ȱ ȱȱȱǯȱAfter its sen-
ȱ ǰȱ the district court imposed sentences count
¢ ȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ǯ To the de-
fendant, ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱŘŖŖ-
¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ-¢-count sentences,
ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ -¢-count sentences
and then ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖȱ¢ǯȱ
    The ¢ȱ  Esposito’s ȱȱ before im-
 sentence, the ȱȱ¢ȱdetermined that
Esposito’s total punishment should be life imprisonment. The
Ȃȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
a de facto term of life imprisonment before ȱ
prison terms on each count.
    The district court ¡¢ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ
request to set his imprisonment based on his 28-¢ȱlife ex-
¢ǰȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱthat ȱȱ ȱȬ
ȱȱȱsentence than that. The district ȱ ȱ
also alert to this court’s directive ȱȱȱ ȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
them. Still, the district court concluded that the defendant’s
ȱȱȱ—ǰȱǰȱǰȱǰȱ
ȱ ȱ — ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ £,
8                                                            No. 20-1124

and that Esposito’s crimes did ȱ ȱȱshorter sentence
equal to his ȱ¡¢ ȱȱȱȱ.
    The district court further ȱ that it ȱ ȱ Ȭ
ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢, and the court
stated ¢ȱȱȱȱnever be around chil-
ȱ . So ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ the court meant to
impose ȱ ¢ȱ life sentence. Indeed, at oral ar-
ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
made it clear that ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯ 1
   Bȱȱȱ¢ȱ¡ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
in prison, the districȱ ǰȱ  ȱ ȗȱ ś ŗǯŘǻǼǰȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
sentence. So, the district court did not ȱ¢ȱȱǯ
    Esposito ȱȱȱȱȱppl¢ȱȱǰȱ -
step sequence that neither 18 U.S.C. ȗȱřśśřǻǼȱȱȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ǯ The text of § ś ŗǯŘ(b) provides that
the court shall determine the total punishment ȃȄȱ shall
impose that total punishment on each such count. That provi-
sion does not ¢ȱ“and thenȄ ȱ¡¢ȱȱȱȱcalcula-
tive process the defendant contends. Rather, § ś ŗǯŘ(b) ȱ
ȱȱȱȱcircumstance different than here. This
case fits better ȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǻǼǰȱȱȱȱȱ
  ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ so ut ¢ȱ ȱ count
¡¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
out a term of de facto life imprisonment ¢ȱȱȱthe con-
secutive and concurrent sentences imposed here. 2

    1   ȱument at ŝǱśŖ.
    2 It also ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱǰȱDe
la Torreǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
No. 20-1124                                                                 9

                                     III
   We conclude that the district court did not err                 ȱim-
ȱȂȱǰȱȱ ȱAFFIRM.

than here. 327 F.3d at 609, 611. De la Torre predated United States v. Booker,
śŚřȱǯǯȱŘŘŖȱǻŘŖŖśǼǰȱ ȱȱ ȱȱovision of the federal sen-
ȱ that required sentences to ȱ ȱȱȱ Ȭ
ȱǰȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱfederal appeals courts
ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱǯȱIdǯȱȱŘŚśǯ