United States v. Todd C. Zastoupil , 223 F. App'x 539 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 05-2821
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                  *
    *
    v.                              * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Todd Christopher Zastoupil,              * District of North Dakota.
    *
    Appellant.                 * [UNPUBLISHED]
    ___________
    Submitted: April 25, 2007
    Filed: May 9, 2007
    ___________
    Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Todd Zastoupil appeals his conviction and sentence imposed by the district
    1
    court after a jury found him guilty of sexual exploitation of minors, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2251
    (a) and (e) (Count 1), and possession of material involving the sexual
    exploitation of minors, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2252
    (a)(4)(B) and (b)(2) (Count 2).
    In a brief under Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), counsel argues that the
    district court miscalculated Zastoupil’s total offense level under the Guidelines, and
    Zastoupil asserts other claims in pro se submissions.
    1
    The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the District of North Dakota.
    Following de novo review of the district court’s interpretation and application
    of the Guidelines, see United States v. Kiel, 
    454 F.3d 819
    , 822 (8th Cir. 2006), we
    find that the court correctly increased Zastoupil’s adjusted offense level of 35 by 4
    levels to account for the two offenses against each of the two victims, see U.S.S.G.
    § 2G2.1(b)(1), § 3D1.2(d) (excluding § 2G2.1 offenses from grouping of closely
    related counts), § 3D1.4(a) (to calculate combined offense level, count group with
    highest offense level as one unit, and count one additional unit for each group that is
    equally serious or from 1 to 4 levels less serious; for 3½-5 units, increase offense level
    by 4 levels); Kiel, 
    454 F.3d at 822-23
     (upholding multiple-count adjustment under
    § 3D1.4 and explaining that under § 2G2.1, concerning sexual exploitation of minors
    by production of sexually explicit visual material, Chapter 3 Part D provisions
    concerning multiple counts shall be applied as if exploitation of each minor had been
    contained in separate count of conviction, and multiple counts involving exploitation
    of multiple minors are not to be grouped together under § 3D1.2). Given Zastoupil’s
    total offense level of 39, his Category V criminal history, and the resulting Guidelines
    imprisonment range of 360 months to life, with a statutory maximum prison term of
    50 years as to Count 1, and 20 years as to Count 2, the district court sentenced
    Zastoupil to concurrent terms of 50 years in prison and 3 years of supervised release
    on Count 1, and 20 years in prison and 3 years of supervised release on Count 2. In
    so doing, the court found that the factors under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) justified a
    sentence at the statutory maximum available under federal law, in part based on the
    disturbing offense conduct and the statement of an evaluating doctor that Zastoupil
    continued to demonstrate cognitive distortions and irrational thought patterns, and that
    he presented a high level of serious risk to the community. We conclude that
    Zastoupil’s sentence was not unreasonable. See United States v. Booker, 
    543 U.S. 220
    , 261-64 (2005).
    Turning to the additional arguments raised in Zastoupil’s pro se supplemental
    filings, we note that claims related to counsel’s performance before and during trial
    should be asserted in a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     proceeding, where the record can be properly
    -2-
    developed. See United States v. Hughes, 
    330 F.3d 1068
    , 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). In
    addition, we reject Zastoupil’s argument that he was sentenced beyond the statutory
    maximum, which he based in part on his contention that his prior state conviction for
    corruption of a minor did not qualify as a prior sexual-exploitation conviction. See
    
    18 U.S.C. §§ 2243
    (a) (sexual abuse of minor includes knowingly engaging in sexual
    act with person 12-15 years old), 2251(e), 2252(b)(2). Further, Zastoupil’s arguments
    concerning the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment and, relatedly, the criminal
    court’s jurisdiction over him are frivolous.
    We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
    ,
    80 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm, and we
    grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-2821

Citation Numbers: 223 F. App'x 539

Judges: Gruender, Per Curiam, Shepherd, Smith

Filed Date: 5/9/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024