USCA11 Case: 19-13437 Date Filed: 11/18/2020 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-13437
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cr-00136-LSC-JHE-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KENNETH EARL HOOKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
No. 19-13564
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:18-cr-00249-LSC-JHE-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
USCA11 Case: 19-13437 Date Filed: 11/18/2020 Page: 2 of 4
KENNETH EARL HOOKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(November 18, 2020)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In this consolidated appeal, Kenneth Hooks appeals his statutory maximum
total sentence of two consecutive life terms plus 120 years’ imprisonment, imposed
after he pleaded guilty to four counts of production of child pornography, one
count of coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, and one
count of transportation of a minor for sexual purposes. Hooks argues that (1) the
district court failed to explain adequately the reasons for the imposed sentences
and failed to consider his mitigation-related arguments; (2) the district court erred
by failing to consider the directive of U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(c) that sentences for
multiple offenses shall run concurrently; and (3) his total sentence is substantively
unreasonable. Because the record in this case does not facilitate meaningful
appellate review of the sentence, we vacate and remand for resentencing.
2
USCA11 Case: 19-13437 Date Filed: 11/18/2020 Page: 3 of 4
Briefly, after Hooks pleaded guilty to the six child-pornography related
counts, the United States Probation Office prepared a presentence investigation
report (“PSI”), indicating that Hooks’s applicable guideline range was life. Hooks
did not object to the PSI, and the district court adopted it. After hearing argument
from the parties as to the appropriate sentence and listening to statements from
Hooks and others, the district court explained that Hooks’s case “calls out for a
guideline sentence, which is life.” The district court then imposed the statutory
maximum of a life sentence as to each of the enticement of a minor and
transportation of a minor counts, and a 30-year sentence as to each of the
production of child pornography counts, but it ran all terms consecutively,
resulting in a total sentence of two consecutive life terms plus 120 years’
imprisonment. Hooks’s counsel objected to the sentence as “being exceptionally
unreasonable,” and the district court again noted “this is a guideline sentence.”
The district court also noted in its statement of reasons that it imposed a sentence
within the guideline range.
As the government notes on appeal, Hooks’s sentence was arguably above
the guideline range due to the imposition of consecutive sentences. Yet the district
court clearly stated multiple times that it intended to impose (and believed it did
impose) a guideline sentence. Thus, there is a tension between the district court’s
statements and the total sentence imposed, which we cannot reconcile based on the
3
USCA11 Case: 19-13437 Date Filed: 11/18/2020 Page: 4 of 4
record before us. Therefore, we vacate Hooks’s sentences and remand the case for
resentencing.1
Additionally, Hooks’s request that we order the case reassigned to a
different district court judge for resentencing is DENIED.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
1
We express no opinion on the sentence itself and note that the district court may
impose the same sentence on remand if it believes this is the appropriate sentence. Regardless of
the sentence imposed, the district court must clarify if it is imposing a guidelines sentence or a
variance. If it imposes a variance, the district court must state its reasons for imposing such
sentence on the record in order to facilitate meaningful appellate review. United States v.
Dougherty, 754 F.3d 1353, 1362 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A district court making an upward variance
must have a justification compelling enough to support the degree of the variance and complete
enough to allow meaningful appellate review.”).
4