NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0406n.06
No. 15-6133
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Jul 19, 2016
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DYLAN QUANDT, ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
__________________________________/ )
Before: GUY, BOGGS, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Defendant, Dylan Quandt, appeals his
sentence of one year and one day of imprisonment for possession of child pornography,
18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). We affirm.
I.
Defendant, then age 20, used his computer to download 834 images of child
pornography. He fully cooperated with FBI agents, turned over all images, and pleaded
guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain. After the district court considered
defendant’s objection to the use-of-a-computer enhancement, his calculated guidelines
Case No. 15-6133 2
United States v. Quandt
range was 63 to 78 months of imprisonment. At the request of the district court, the
parties filed “extraordinarily thorough” additional sentencing briefs.
At a second sentencing hearing, the district court acknowledged defendant’s
guidelines range but indicated it would vary downward. The district court inquired about
the applicability of the Bistline series of cases discussed in the government’s
supplemental sentencing brief. In Bistline, this court twice remanded the district court’s
sentence of one day in prison (with substantial terms of supervised release and home
confinement) for possession of child pornography, reassigned sentencing to a different
judge, and ultimately affirmed a one-year sentence. See United States v. Bistline (Bistline
I), 665 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2012); United States v. Bistline (Bistline II), 720 F.3d 631 (6th
Cir. 2013); United States v. Bistline (Bistline III), 605 F. App’x 529 (6th Cir. 2015), cert.
denied 136 S. Ct. 169 (2015). At sentencing, defendant’s counsel characterized the
government’s argument as “suggesting that [Bistline created] a bottom line below which
the Court cannot go,” a characterization the government disputed. The district court
recognized that Bistline was “very, very instructive,” but “made clear that [it did not]
think that Bistline or any other Sixth Circuit case stands for the proposition that [one year
of imprisonment] is a floor below which you cannot go . . . .” The district court imposed
a sentence of one year and one day of imprisonment, plus 20 years of supervised release.
Defendant objected, asserting that he should instead receive only home confinement. He
renews this argument on appeal.
Case No. 15-6133 3
United States v. Quandt
II.
We review defendant’s sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion
standard, giving “due deference to the district court’s decision that the [18 U.S.C]
§ 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Gall v. United States,
552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A district court abuses its sentencing discretion if it “commit[s a]
significant procedural error,” id., “selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on
impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an
unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor,” United States v. Conatser,
514 F.3d 508, 520 (6th Cir. 2008).
III.
Defendant claims that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court
misinterpreted Bistline as creating a one-year mandatory minimum for possession of
child pornography. Over the course of two hearings, the district court exhaustively
discussed Bistline and how the case informed its sentencing determination. Although it
queried whether it might read Bistline to stand for a one-year sentencing floor, it went to
great lengths to explain that the case was merely instructive on the seriousness of child
pornography offenses, and did not establish any mandatory minimum sentence.
The district court did exactly what it must: evaluate all of the sentencing factors in
light of the seriousness of the offense conduct. The sentence it imposed was the result of
its independent analysis of the § 3553(a) factors, not any misunderstanding about whether
Bistline or any other ruling created, by judicial fiat, a one-year mandatory minimum
Case No. 15-6133 4
United States v. Quandt
sentence for possessing child pornography. As the district court repeatedly noted, and we
affirm, this court has done no such thing. See Bistline I, 665 F.3d at 761 (“[D]efining
crimes and fixing penalties are legislative . . . functions.” (quoting United States v.
Evans, 333 U.S. 483, 486 (1948)).
Defendant nevertheless argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable because
he was less culpable than defendants who received similar sentences for violating the
same law. He contrasts the facts of his case with those that resulted in one-year sentences
in Bistline and Robinson. United States v. Robinson (Robinson II), 778 F.3d 515 (6th Cir.
2015), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 2904 (2015). So too did the district court in discussing the
§ 3553(a) factors, especially reduction of unwarranted sentencing disparities. It reached a
different result than defendant would like, but it was not an unreasonable one. See
United States v. Hogan, 458 F. App’x 498, 504 (6th Cir. 2012) (“That the court did not
weigh the factors raised by Defendant in the manner that he would have liked . . . does
not indicate that the court acted improperly or disregarded Defendant’s arguments.”).
The district court had discretion to impose a lesser sentence, and suggested that it
still might if the circumstances call for it, commenting that defendant was not “the least
culpable child pornography defendant [the court wi]ll ever see.” The 366-day sentence it
imposed was procedurally and substantively reasonable, and therefore not an abuse of
discretion.
AFFIRMED.