NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0285n.06
No. 13-3974
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Apr 16, 2014
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
KEVIN D. TODD, ) OHIO
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
BEFORE: GILMAN, GIBBONS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Kevin D. Todd appeals his sentence.
Pursuant to a binding plea agreement, Todd pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a
minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The district court determined that, based on a total
offense level of 39 and a criminal history category of II, Todd’s guidelines range of
imprisonment was 292 to 360 months. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Todd was to
receive a prison sentence of 240 to 300 months. The district court accepted the plea agreement
and sentenced Todd to 300 months in prison, to be followed by a life term of supervised release.
On appeal, Todd argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the
district court failed to adequately explain its reason for imposing a life term of supervised
release. We review Todd’s challenge for plain error because defense counsel failed to object to
the sentence when given the opportunity to do so by the district court at the conclusion of the
sentencing hearing. See United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
No. 13-3974
United States v. Todd
To establish plain error, Todd must show that an obvious or clear error affected his substantial
rights as well as the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. See id.
The district court did not plainly err in imposing Todd’s sentence. The court adequately
explained that the life term of supervised release was warranted based on the heinous nature of
Todd’s actions and the need to protect the public. Given that the arguments raised during
sentencing were straightforward and conceptually simple and the life term of supervised release
was the recommended term under the guidelines, see USSG § 5D1.2(b)(2), the district court was
not required to further explain its sentencing decision. See United States v. Duane, 533 F.3d
441, 451-52 (6th Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we affirm Todd’s sentence.
-2-