United States v. King ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 12-2047
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Appellee,
    v.
    THOMAS KING,
    Defendant, Appellant.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
    [Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Torruella, Circuit Judge,
    Souter,* Associate Justice,
    and Selya, Circuit Judge.
    Alexandra Deal, with whom Stern, Shapiro, Weissberg & Garin,
    LLP was on brief, for appellant.
    Renée M. Bunker, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom
    Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, was on brief, for
    appellee.
    January 31, 2014
    ________
    * Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the Supreme
    Court of the United States, sitting by designation.
    SELYA, Circuit Judge.    The federal sentencing guidelines
    are designed to serve as tools to assist judges in performing one
    of their most consequential tasks.       They are not meant to dictate
    robotic   sentencing   outcomes.        In    this   single-issue      appeal,
    defendant-appellant Thomas King challenges his 72-month term of
    immurement as substantively unreasonable. As framed, his challenge
    both distorts the function of the federal sentencing guidelines and
    undervalues   the   district   court's        broader     appraisal    of    the
    seriousness of the offense of conviction. After setting the record
    straight, we affirm.
    Inasmuch as this appeal follows a guilty plea, we draw
    the factual background from the plea agreement, the change-of-plea
    colloquy, the presentence investigation report (PSI Report), and
    the transcript of the disposition hearing.              See United States v.
    Fernández-Cabrera, 
    625 F.3d 48
    , 50 (1st Cir. 2010).              For present
    purposes, a brief synopsis suffices.
    In July of 2011, a federal grand jury sitting in the
    District of Maine returned an indictment charging the defendant
    with possessing a computer that held child pornography.                See 18
    U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).       The charge arose out of a forensic
    examination   of    the   defendant's         computer,     which     revealed
    surreptitiously     recorded   videos        of   the    defendant's        minor
    stepdaughter masturbating in her bathroom. The defendant initially
    -2-
    maintained his innocence but, within a matter of months, entered a
    guilty plea.
    When the PSI Report was prepared, it recommended a base
    offense level of 18.         It further recommended the application of a
    series of enhancements: five levels for a pattern of abuse, see
    USSG §2G2.2(b)(5); two levels for the use of a computer in the
    commission of the offense, see 
    id. §2G2.2(b)(6); and
    three levels
    for       possessing   150     to    300     offending     images,     see   
    id. §2G2.2(b)(7)(B).1 Assuming
    a three-level decrease for acceptance
    of responsibility, see 
    id. §3E1.1, the
    PSI Report projected the
    total offense level as 25.             Based on this projection and the
    absence of any prior criminal history, the report suggested a
    guideline sentencing range (GSR) of 57 to 71 months.
    The district court convened the disposition hearing on
    August 21, 2012.       The defendant challenged the application of the
    computer enhancement, arguing that it overstated the gravity of his
    offense      because   it    was    meant    to   target   child     pornography
    trafficking on the Internet (an activity in which he had not
    engaged).      He also challenged the number-of-images enhancement,
    arguing that it unfairly lumped his small cache of videos with
    larger collections of child pornography.
    1
    For sentencing purposes, each video clip is deemed to
    contain 75 images. See USSG §2G2.2, comment. (n.4(B)(ii)).
    -3-
    The district court rejected both arguments. It explained
    that the computer enhancement was not pegged to Internet use but,
    rather, to computer use and therefore applied.                The court further
    explained       that    the     number-of-images        enhancement,         though
    "imperfect," applied and represented "a very rough proxy for
    seriousness."          Similarly,     the    court    found     the     five-level
    enhancement for a pattern of abuse to be warranted.               And, finally,
    the   court     disagreed     with   the    PSI   Report   and    discerned      no
    justification for an acceptance-of-responsibility discount. These
    determinations produced a total offense level of 28 which, when
    combined with the absence of any prior criminal record, yielded a
    GSR of 78 to 97 months.
    The court then heard the defendant's allocution.                After
    considering     the    statutory     sentencing      factors,    see    18   U.S.C.
    § 3553(a), and "concentrat[ing] on the history and characteristics
    of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of the offense,"
    it varied downward and imposed a 72-month sentence.                    This timely
    appeal ensued.
    In this venue the defendant, represented by new counsel,
    consolidates his arguments against the computer and number-of-
    images enhancements.        In his repackaged claim of error, he strives
    to convince us that, due mainly to the combined effect of these
    enhancements, his sentence is substantively unreasonable.                    We are
    not persuaded.
    -4-
    We review challenges to the reasonableness of a sentence
    for abuse of discretion and proceed according to a two-step pavane.
    See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007).                      First, we
    resolve any claims of procedural error.           See id.; United States v.
    Rodríguez, 
    527 F.3d 221
    , 224 (1st Cir. 2008).             Second — and only if
    the sentence passes procedural muster — we inquire whether the
    sentence is substantively reasonable.            See 
    Gall, 552 U.S. at 51
    .
    In this appeal, the defendant has not preserved any claim
    of procedural error.       Refined to bare essence, his lone assignment
    of error reduces to a plaint that the district court's downward
    variance did not go far enough, resulting in a sentence that is
    substantively unreasonable.
    The     "linchpin"      of     our     review     for    substantive
    reasonableness    is   a   determination       about   whether    the    sentence
    reflects "a plausible . . . rationale and a defensible result."
    United States v. Martin, 
    520 F.3d 87
    , 96 (1st Cir. 2008).                      In
    making this determination, considerable deference is owed to the
    sentencing court; and a reviewing court cannot simply substitute
    its judgment for that of the sentencing court.               See 
    id. at 92.
    Consequently, we limit our review to the question of whether the
    sentence, in light of the totality of the circumstances, resides
    within the expansive universe of reasonable sentences.                  See 
    id. The core
    of the defendant's argument is his insistence
    that    the      computer      and       number-of-images         enhancements
    -5-
    indiscriminately sweep up conduct of widely divergent culpability,
    and that sentences embodying these enhancements necessarily fail to
    "guard     against    unwarranted        similarities     among    sentences      for
    defendants who have been found guilty of dissimilar conduct."
    United States v. Dorvee, 
    616 F.3d 174
    , 187 (2d Cir. 2010).                   In his
    view, such sentences contravene the spirit of Congress's admonition
    "to   avoid     unwarranted            sentence   disparities,"         18   U.S.C.
    § 3553(a)(6), and are therefore substantively unreasonable.
    This argument fundamentally misapprehends the role of the
    guidelines in the sentencing process.                   The guidelines are not
    intended to fashion sentences with the precision of a Savile Row
    tailor.    To the contrary, they represent a "wholesale" approach to
    sentencing, offering only "a rough approximation of sentences that
    might achieve § 3553(a)'s objectives."                Rita v. United States, 
    551 U.S. 338
    , 348, 350 (2007). As such, the guidelines are simply "the
    starting    point    and   .   .   .    initial   benchmark"      for   crafting    a
    sentence.     
    Gall, 552 U.S. at 49
    .
    This starting point is merely a step along the path.
    After arriving at an appropriate GSR, the court must proceed to
    "make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented"
    and the statutory sentencing factors in order to shape the actual
    sentence.     
    Id. at 50.
    Given the function of the sentencing guidelines and the
    methodology    that    they    contemplate,       a    frontal    assault    on   the
    -6-
    guidelines cannot, without more, afford a persuasive basis for a
    claim of sentencing disparity, much less for a claim of substantive
    unreasonableness.     After all, such an assault takes aim at a
    fragment of an inchoate sentence, but a court's inquiry into
    substantive reasonableness must examine more: "the totality of the
    circumstances" surrounding the final product.          
    Id. at 51.
    By definition, such an inquiry does not allow a reviewing
    court to examine guideline enhancements in isolation.           Rather, a
    reviewing court must account for the whole of the various integers
    that comprise the sentencing calculus, including the sentencing
    court's overall appraisal of the GSR, its evaluation of the
    offender and the offense conduct, and its case-specific synthesis
    of the statutory sentencing factors.
    Seen   in   this   light,     the   defendant's    argument    is
    unsupportable.      The   defendant   beseeches   us    to   look   at   two
    enhancements to the exclusion of everything else. Honoring such an
    entreaty would undermine our consistent directive that sentencing
    courts must refrain from adopting "a narrow focus on a particular
    [sentencing] factor in isolation."        
    Rodríguez, 527 F.3d at 228
    .
    Appellate courts — like district courts — are not at liberty to
    engage in such a faulty practice.
    Sentencing requires a broader focus because "section
    3553(a) is more than a laundry list of discrete sentencing factors;
    it is, rather, a tapestry of factors, through which runs the thread
    -7-
    of an overarching principle": that a sentencing court ought "to
    'impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary' to
    accomplish the goals of sentencing."                  
    Id. (quoting 18
    U.S.C.
    § 3553(a)).    The defendant's entreaty, which invites us to ignore
    the   forest   and    glimpse     only    a     couple      of   trees,   perfectly
    exemplifies the folly of such a single-minded approach.2
    The    court    below   did        not   view    the    guidelines     as
    conclusive; instead, it appropriately treated them as a starting
    point.    The defendant's pedantic railings against the severity of
    specific guideline enhancements overlook this reality.                        Those
    railings likewise overlook the district court's cogent statement of
    its reasoning as to why a "harsh and severe" sentence was warranted
    in this instance.
    The sentencing court's reasoning does not exhibit any
    lockstep deference to the guidelines.                Far from it: the court's
    rationale recognizes that a defendant's past actions often may be
    the   architects     of    an   appropriate      sentencing        outcome.      This
    rationale draws primarily upon the "appalling" nature of the
    defendant's conduct. In support, the court patiently explained the
    details that made the offense conduct especially reprehensible,
    including the tender age of the victim, the gross invasion of
    2
    For much the same reasons, the defendant's forlorn attempt
    to illustrate the putative unreasonableness of his sentence by
    comparing his GSR with a hypothetical GSR for sexual abuse of a
    minor is an exercise in futility.
    -8-
    privacy associated with a surreptitious recording made in the
    victim's   bathroom,     the    defendant's    deviant       self-gratification
    (masturbating while watching the videos), and the "betrayal of
    trust" stemming from the defendant's relationship with the victim.
    This lucid explanation fully justified the sentence that the
    district court imposed.
    In an effort to derail this train of thought, the
    defendant relies heavily on the decision in United States v.
    Dorvee, 
    616 F.3d 174
    (2d Cir. 2010).           This reliance is misplaced.
    In   Dorvee,    the    Second     Circuit   found     a     233-month    sentence
    substantively      unreasonable     because,    among       other    things,   the
    sentencing court "offered no clear reason" for the lengthy sentence
    and relied unthinkingly on the guidelines in determining that the
    sentence was reasonable.          
    Id. at 184.
           The court below was not
    guilty of any such bevues; as we have explained, it examined the
    totality of the circumstances, appropriately treated the various
    guideline provisions as rough proxies, fashioned a sentence that
    responded to the nature and circumstances of the offense, and gave
    a plausible reason for the sentence.           No more was exigible.
    Let us be perfectly clear.          We are not unsympathetic to
    concerns   about      perceived    harshness    in    the    child    pornography
    guidelines.     See, e.g., United States v. Stone, 
    575 F.3d 83
    , 97
    (1st Cir. 2009).      Here, however, the defendant's challenge focuses
    myopically on certain guidelines to the exclusion of all else and,
    -9-
    thus, fails to account for the actual reasons that support the
    imposition of his sentence.          Those reasons are fully sufficient to
    justify the sentence imposed.
    To cinch matters, the fact that a sentence falls within
    a   properly   constructed     GSR    typically         affords       some   basis    for
    concluding that the sentence is substantively reasonable.                             See
    United States v. Pelletier, 
    469 F.3d 194
    , 204 (1st Cir. 2006).
    Here, the sentence actually imposed was below the bottom of a
    properly constructed GSR.         It is a rare below-the-range sentence
    that will prove vulnerable to a defendant's claim of substantive
    unreasonableness.       See United States v. Floyd, ___ F.3d ___, ___
    (1st Cir. 2014) [Nos. 12-2229, 12-2231, slip op. at 36]. This case
    plainly falls within the general rule, not within the long-odds
    exception to it.
    There   is    one   loose       end.       In   his    reply      brief,   the
    defendant suggests for the first time that his trial counsel
    rendered   ineffective     assistance            by   failing    to    challenge      the
    district   court's      refusal      to    credit       him     for    acceptance      of
    responsibility.      We decline to address this suggestion for two
    reasons.   First, arguments that make their debut in an appellant's
    reply brief are ordinarily deemed waived.                     See United States v.
    Eirby, 
    515 F.3d 31
    , 37 n.4 (1st Cir. 2008).                      Second — with only
    limited exceptions (none of which is applicable here) — we will not
    address ineffective assistance of counsel claims that are raised
    -10-
    for the first time on direct review.3            See United States v.
    Maldonado-García, 
    446 F.3d 227
    , 233 (1st Cir. 2006); United States
    v. Mala, 
    7 F.3d 1058
    , 1063 (1st Cir. 1993).
    We need go no further. For the reasons elucidated above,
    we deem the defendant's sentence to be well within the universe of
    condign   punishment   for   a   particularly   repellent   crime.   The
    sentence is, therefore,
    Affirmed.
    3
    The defendant may, of course, pursue such a claim through a
    petition for collateral relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United
    States v. Mala, 
    7 F.3d 1058
    , 1064 (1st Cir. 1993).
    -11-