Court Opinion

ID: 9368337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-03 20:01:36.342253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:07.201586
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                   File Name: 23a0070n.06

                                               No. 21-1845

                             UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
                                                                                            FILED
                                                             )                        Feb 03, 2023
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                        DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
                                                             )
            Plaintiff-Appellee,                              )
                                                             )       ON APPEAL FROM THE
 v.                                                          )       UNITED STATES DISTRICT
                                                             )       COURT FOR THE WESTERN
 JUAN CARLOS ARROYO aka John Gamez,                          )       DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
            Defendant-Appellant.                             )
                                                             )                              OPINION
                                                             )

Before: SILER, BATCHELDER, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

           ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Juan Carlos Arroyo

appeals his Guidelines-range sentence for receipt of child pornography. Arroyo argues that the

district court substantively erred because it should have varied downward due to his background

and the circumstances of his offense. Finding no error, we AFFIRM.

      I.      Background and Procedural History

              A. Background

           Arroyo is a man with a difficult past, having suffered from several instances of sexual abuse

throughout his childhood. But Arroyo also has a history of receiving, possessing, and distributing

child pornography. In September 2019, police confiscated his cell phone and subsequently

discovered child pornography on it. In May 2020, Michigan charged him with aggravated

possession of child-sexual-abuse material and use of a computer to commit a crime. And on May
No. 21-1845, United States v. Arroyo

4, 2021, the federal government charged Arroyo with one count of receiving and one count of

possessing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.1

           At the time of his arrest, Arroyo lived in his sister’s basement. His sister has three children,

including a two-year-old son, Arroyo’s nephew. While living with his sister, Arroyo allegedly had

graphic conversations with three other men about sexually abusing his nephew and offered his

nephew for such purposes. He also possessed child pornography and offered access to or told

others how to access it. The police recovered three images and five videos, which equates to 378

images. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7) cmt. n.6(B)(ii).

               B. Procedural History

           Arroyo pleaded guilty to count one of the indictment: receipt of child pornography.

Neither Arroyo nor the government objected to the Sentencing Guidelines calculations, which

resulted in an offense level of 36, a criminal history category of I, and an imprisonment range of

188 to 235 months. Prior to sentencing, Arroyo asked the court for a downward variance from the

Guidelines because of his background, lack of criminal history, and the failure of the Guidelines

to account for “the reality of modern child-pornography offenses.” The government opposed the

motion.

           At the sentencing hearing, the district court denied Arroyo’s motion for a variance due to

the totality of the circumstances and the seriousness of the offense. At the hearing, the court

discussed the advisory nature of the Guidelines and noted that the court must “make an

individualized assessment based on the facts presented.” Although the court recognized that “there

doesn’t appear to be any hands-on involvement by Mr. Arroyo with a two-year-old child or any

other child,” the court’s said its “alarm bells are up,” that his conduct was “egregious,” and that he

1
    The related Michigan charges were dropped after Arroyo was arrested for these federal crimes.

                                                          -2-
No. 21-1845, United States v. Arroyo

is “a significant threat to youngsters.” The court viewed Arroyo as “a very dangerous individual”

from whom the public needs protection. On the other hand, the court also acknowledged Arroyo’s

“very very difficult history” from “his own victimization at [a] younger age,” which the court

“calculated … into the sentence” it imposed. The court recognized that Arroyo had sought help

for his mental health, but also that he waited to seek help until after law enforcement had

discovered his misconduct. The court said that it had no “policy disagreements with the contours

of the child pornography guidelines.”

         The court denied Arroyo’s motion for a variance, stating that it believed a sentence in the

middle of the Guidelines range was appropriate in light of all the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,

including promoting respect for the law, providing just punishment, deterring the defendant, and

reflecting the seriousness of the offense.        The court sentenced Arroyo to 204 months’

imprisonment and eight years of supervised release. This timely appeal followed.

   II.      Legal Standard

         This court reviews the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion

standard. United States v. Solano-Rosales, 781 F.3d 345, 351 (6th Cir. 2015) (quotation marks

omitted). When the defendant “raises a particular argument” for a lower sentence, “the record

must reflect both that the district [court] considered the defendant’s argument” and articulated its

reasoning “sufficiently to permit reasonable appellate review.” Id. at 352; United States v.

Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 554 (6th Cir. 2006).

          “A sentence is substantively reasonable if it is proportionate to the seriousness of the

circumstances of the offense and offender, and sufficient but not greater than necessary, to comply

with the purposes of § 3553(a).” Solano-Rosales, 781 F.3d at 356 (quotation marks omitted). A

sentence is substantively unreasonable when the court “selects the sentence arbitrarily, bas[es] the

                                                 -3-
No. 21-1845, United States v. Arroyo

sentence on impermissible factors, fail[s] to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors, or giv[es] an

unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” Id. (quotation marks omitted); United

States v. Robinson, 892 F.3d 209, 213 (6th Cir. 2018). The defendant bears the burden of rebutting

the presumption that a sentence within the Guidelines range is substantively reasonable. See

United States v. Pirosko, 787 F.3d 358, 374 (6th Cir. 2015). This court does not generally second

guess the substantive reasonableness of a Guidelines-range sentence. United States v. Simmons,

587 F.3d 348, 365 (6th Cir. 2009).

   III.      Discussion

          On appeal, Arroyo argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable for three reasons:

(1) the district court gave an unreasonable amount of weight to his alleged dangerousness;

(2) policy reasons support a lower sentence; and (3) the district court failed to consider the

mitigating circumstances of his personal characteristics and background. We disagree.

          First, the district court did not give an unreasonable amount of weight to Arroyo’s

dangerousness. Arroyo argues that, because he did not commit any “hands-on offenses,” his

sentence should be lower than those of similarly situated defendants who have committed “hands-

on offenses.” But the Guidelines do not require “hands-on” offenses for his Guidelines range.

And the district court adequately explained its reasoning, including pointing out that Arroyo, in

very graphic terms, repeatedly offered his two-year-old nephew for sexual abuse. The fact that the

record did not establish that Arroyo ever followed through with these offers provides no reason to

believe he would not follow through in the future. It was therefore not unreasonable for the district

court, when determining what sentence to impose, to conclude that Arroyo poses a threat to

children and the public.

                                                  -4-
No. 21-1845, United States v. Arroyo

       Second, the district court did not err when it did not vary downward for policy reasons.

Arroyo argues that the enhancements he received were meant for more serious offenders than non-

production offenders like himself. The district court considered the policy and made it clear that

it had no disagreement with the policy underlying the Guidelines. As an initial matter, the district

court is not required to consider the policy reasons for the Guidelines range. United States v.

Brooks, 628 F.3d 791, 800 (6th Cir. 2011). Although the court may reject the Guidelines range

for policy reasons, the district court is not required to disagree with the Guidelines range, nor is it

required to reject the Guidelines range even if it does disagree. Id. at 799-800; United States v.

Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568, 585-86 (6th Cir. 2009) (concluding that Kimbrough v. United

States, 552 U.S. 85, 109-110 (2007) authorizes a district court to reject the Guidelines range

because it disagrees with the policy behind it). If the court disagrees with the Guidelines based on

the circumstances of the case, then, it may vary or depart up or down. Here, the district court did

not disagree with the policy reasons for the Guidelines range, nor did it find any reasons to vary

downward after considering the § 3553(a) factors. This was not unreasonable considering the

circumstances of this case.

       Finally, contrary to Arroyo’s assertion, the court did consider Arroyo’s mitigating

circumstances. The court recognized Arroyo’s difficult past and how at a young age he had been

a victim of sexual abuse. The court also discussed Arroyo’s history and counseling, expressing

hope that Arroyo will benefit from counseling. The court discussed these factors and explicitly

stated that it took all of this into consideration when determining what sentence to impose.

Arroyo’s disagreement with how much weight the court gave his history in sentencing him does

not make it unreasonable.

                                                 -5-
No. 21-1845, United States v. Arroyo

       Because the sentence is substantively reasonable, the court did not abuse its discretion

when it denied Arroyo’s motion for a variance.

                                       CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

                                                 -6-