United States v. Yancy Craft

Case: 13-14115 Date Filed: 07/23/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-14115
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cr-00047-CDL-MSH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
YANCY CRAFT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(July 23, 2014)
Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-14115 Date Filed: 07/23/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Appellant Yancy Craft pled guilty to one count of knowingly receiving child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A). In exchange for Craft’s
guilty plea, the Government stipulated in a written plea agreement that, for
purposes of sentencing, Craft possessed three images of child pornography.
However, subsequent forensic examination of Craft’s computer and hard drives
revealed more than 3,900 prohibited images. Consequently, in preparing the
presentence investigation report, the probation officer applied a five-level
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) because Craft’s offense involved
600 or more images. The § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) enhancement, together with other
adjustments and Craft’s criminal history category of I, yielded an advisory
guidelines range of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. At sentencing, Craft asked
the district court to accept the stipulation in the plea agreement and sentence him
based on his possession of three images. The district court declined to accept the
stipulation and sentenced Craft to 151 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Craft
argues the district court should not have sentenced him based on his possession of
more than 3,900 images of child pornography but, instead, should have accepted
the stipulation in the plea agreement and sentenced him based on only three
images.
2
Case: 13-14115 Date Filed: 07/23/2014 Page: 3 of 3
The district court did not err by declining to accept the stipulation in Craft’s
plea agreement. 1 We have explained that, in calculating a defendant’s sentence,
the district court is not bound by the parties’ stipulations. United States v. Forbes,
888 F.2d 752, 754 (11th Cir. 1989). The Guidelines also provide that “[t]he court
is not bound by [the parties’] stipulation, but may with the aid of the presentence
report, determine the facts relevant to sentencing.” U.S.S.G. § 6B1.4. As the
guidelines commentary notes, “the court cannot rely exclusively upon stipulations
in ascertaining the factors relevant to the determination of sentence.” U.S.S.G.
§ 6B1.4 (commentary). “Rather, in determining the factual basis for the sentence,
the court will consider the stipulation, together with the results of the presentence
investigation, and any other relevant information.” Id. In calculating Craft’s
sentence, the district court considered the stipulation, together with other relevant
information, including the results of the presentence investigation and a forensic
analysis which revealed that Craft possessed more than 3,900 images of child
pornography. The court did not err in its application of the Guidelines and we
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
1
“[I]n assessing a district court’s imposition of an offense-level enhancement, we review
the court’s findings of fact for clear error and its application of the Sentencing Guidelines de
novo.” United States v. Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d 1306, 1313 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
3