Court Opinion

ID: 9699957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:00:54.348174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:33.752503
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4454      Doc: 28         Filed: 08/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 6

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-4454

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ERIC WERNER JOHANSSON,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-cr-00389-M-1)

        Submitted: August 9, 2023                                         Decided: August 24, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: G. Alan DuBois, Federal Public Defender, Andrew DeSimone, Assistant
        Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh,
        North Carolina, for Appellant. Michael F. Easley, Jr., United States Attorney, David A.
        Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4454       Doc: 28         Filed: 08/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

               Eric Werner Johansson pled guilty to two counts of transportation of child

        pornography and one count of possession of child pornography involving a prepubescent

        minor. He was sentenced to 150 months in prison and a 20-year term of supervised release.

        On appeal, he asserts that the district court erred by failing to provide appropriate reasoning

        for the lengthy term of supervised release. We affirm.

               The parties disagree as to the applicable standard of review.            Recently, we

        determined in United States v. Elbaz, 52 F.4th 593, 611 (4th Cir. 2023), petition for

        certiorari filed (No. 22-1055, May 1, 2023), that plain error review applied to the review

        of Elbaz’s supervised release term because “Elbaz’s objections to her term of imprisonment

        are not specific enough to preserve a challenge to the terms of supervised release.” We

        noted that objections must be made “with sufficient specificity so as to reasonably alert the

        district court of the true ground for the objection.” Id. However, “where the sentence and

        the supervised release condition are problematic on the same basis,” asking for a shorter

        prison sentence preserved an objection to supervised release. Id. at 611-12 & n.18.

               Johansson contends that the objections he made in favor of a below-Guidelines

        prison sentence also applied to the supervised release term. In arguing for a lower prison

        sentence below, Johansson asserted that the collateral consequences of his conduct

        provided additional punishment, promoted respect for the law, and served as both a specific

        and general deterrent.        Further, Johansson referred to his upbringing, education,

        employment history, lack of substantial criminal history, age, and low risk of recidivism.

        On appeal, Johansson raises similar, although not identical, reasons for a shorter supervised

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4454       Doc: 28         Filed: 08/24/2023      Pg: 3 of 6

        release term that he asserts the district court failed to address: low risk of recidivism, lack

        of necessity for supervision into his 90s, and unnecessary supervision after requirement to

        register as a sex offender had expired. Although Johansson never specifically referenced

        his supervised release term or requested a specific supervised release sentence, he asserts

        that his request for a variance sentence referred to both his imprisonment and the length of

        his supervised release term and encompassed his appellate arguments.

               However, the circumstances of this case make it clear that Johansson’s request for

        a variant prison sentence did not include a request for a variant supervised release term and

        that Johansson did not otherwise argue for a shorter supervised release term. Specifically,

        the district court was statutorily required to sentence Johansson to at least the mandatory

        minimum five years of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k). Given that the presentence

        report calculated an advisory Guidelines range of five-years-to-life of supervised release,

        a below-Guidelines term of supervised release would have been below the statutory

        maximum and outside the court’s authority to impose. Thus, Johansson’s arguments for a

        below-Guidelines variant prison sentence cannot be imputed to his supervised release term.

        Given that Johansson did not request a shorter, within-Guidelines term of supervised

        release than he received, the adequacy of the district court’s explanation for his supervised

        release term is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 581 (4th

        Cir. 2010) (holding that defendant preserves objection to sentence when request for a lower

        sentence is rejected).

               “To show that the district court plainly erred, [Johansson] must establish that (1) an

        error occurred; (2) the error was plain; and (3) the error affected his substantial rights.”

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4454      Doc: 28         Filed: 08/24/2023     Pg: 4 of 6

        United States v. Combs, 36 F.4th 502, 505 (4th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). Even if these

        requirements are met, we will “exercise [its] discretion to correct the error only if it

        seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id.

        (cleaned up).

               “District judges exercise significant discretion in setting the length and conditions

        of supervised release within parameters set by both federal statutes and the Sentencing

        Guidelines.” United States v. Hamilton, 986 F.3d 413, 417 (4th Cir. 2021). Although it is

        sometimes possible to discern a sentencing court’s rationale from the context surrounding

        its decision, United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 381 (4th Cir. 2006), “an

        appellate court may not guess at the district court’s rationale, searching the record for

        statements by the Government or defense counsel or for any other clues that might explain

        a sentence,” United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 329-30 (4th Cir. 2009). “[I]n a routine

        case, where the district court imposes a within-Guidelines sentence, the explanation need

        not be elaborate or lengthy.” United States v. Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167, 174–75 (4th Cir.

        2020) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               At sentencing, the district court addressed Johansson’s arguments in depth and

        without objection and imposed a downward variance prison term and a supervised release

        term below the Guidelines recommendation of life. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

        Manual § 5D1.2(b), p.s. Thus, there was likely no error, and certainly not plain error.

        However, even assuming there was error in the failure to explicitly and separately discuss

        Johansson’s age and likelihood to recidivate when imposing the supervised release term,

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4454       Doc: 28          Filed: 08/24/2023    Pg: 5 of 6

        Johansson’s challenge to the procedural reasonableness of his sentence must fail, because

        this error did not affect his substantial rights.

               The district court sentenced Johansson to less than the recommended life in prison,

        and Johansson fails to explain how explicit consideration of his appellate arguments would

        have resulted in an even lower sentence. The court was well aware of Johansson’s age and

        low risk of recidivism when it sentenced him. Johansson does not dispute that the court

        fully considered his arguments in imposing his custodial sentence and provides no basis to

        believe that the court’s consideration of his supervised release term was any less careful.

        See United States v. Carson, 924 F.3d 467, 470-71 (8th Cir. 2019) (noting that an

        “overarching” explanation for the prison term will often provide an adequate explanation

        for the supervised release term). Moreover, the Guidelines recommended a life term of

        supervised release, and the court imposed a lesser term. Accordingly, Johansson cannot

        demonstrate that the district court’s failure to explain the basis for its decision “had a

        prejudicial effect on the sentence imposed.” Lynn, 592 F.3d at 580; see also United

        States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 273 (4th Cir. 2010) (“To demonstrate that a sentencing

        error affected his substantial rights, [the defendant] would have to show that, absent the

        error, a different sentence might have been imposed.”).

               In any event, this is not a case where we will exercise our discretion to correct any

        error. Johansson is subject to deportation upon release, and he has expressed a desire to

        return to South Africa. Further, even if Johansson is not deported, this is a case where the

        Guidelines recommended a life term of supervised release, and Johansson received a lesser

        sentence. Moreover, Johannson provides no argument supporting the conclusion that his

                                                        5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4454      Doc: 28         Filed: 08/24/2023     Pg: 6 of 6

        sentence affects the fairness and integrity of the judicial system, and lengthy terms of

        supervised release are common in child pornography cases. See, e.g., United States v.

        Accardi, 669 F.3d 340, 346 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citing cases imposing life terms of supervised

        release in child pornography cases).

              Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

        legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

        would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    6