FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 28, 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 11-4129
RODERICK DUSTIN JACKMAN, (D.C. No. 2:09-CR-00581-TS-1)
(D. Utah)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges, and SKAVDAHL, District
Judge. **
Defendant Roderick Dustin Jackman admitted possessing over 600 images of
child pornography on his personal computer during 2009. He pled guilty to one
count of possessing such pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)
(prior version). The applicable guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 (2009), resulted in a
sentencing range of 78–97 months imprisonment, to be followed by a statutory
minimum 5-year term of supervised release. The district court sentenced Defendant
to 72 months imprisonment and a 10-year term of supervised release. On appeal
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however,
for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**
Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, United States District Judge for the District
of Wyoming, sitting by designation.
Defendant claims (1) the Government breached the plea agreement by asking the
district court to impose a life term of supervised release on him; and (2) the district
court committed procedural error by failing to recognize its authority to categorically
disagree with a guideline. Our jurisdiction arises under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. We
consider each claim in turn, and summarily affirm.
I.
In the plea agreement, the Government agreed “[t]o recommend at sentencing
that the Defendant be sentenced at the low-end of the range in the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines.” At the plea hearing, the Government reiterated that in exchange for
Defendant’s guilty plea, the Government would “recommend that the Defendant be
sentenced at the low end of the guideline range.” Prior to Defendant’s sentencing,
the Government filed a response to Defendant’s sentencing memorandum. Therein,
the Government recommended a “Guideline sentence of 78 months, the low end of
the properly calculated range, to be followed by supervised release for a term of
life.”
Defendant replied by claiming the Government’s request for a life term of
supervised release violated the plea agreement: “[T]he Government promised to ask
for a sentence at the low end of the guideline range. In this case, the low end of the
guideline range for supervised release is two years. [Defendant] asks the court to
ensure the Government performs on its promise at sentencing.” (internal footnotes
omitted). The Government answered by explaining its low-end promise in the plea
2
agreement pertained only to Defendant’s term of imprisonment and not his term of
supervised release. 1 The Government stated, however, that it “would not object to
Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea, should he chose to file such motion, based
on his misunderstanding of the terms of the plea agreement.”
At the sentencing hearing, Defendant did not raise the issue of the alleged
breach; nor did he move to withdraw his plea. When the Government raised the
issue, the court stated it would not rule on whether the Government’s prior request
for a life term of supervised release violated the plea agreement because Defendant
had not renewed his objection. The court told the Government that “[o]ut of an
abundance of caution, you can argue for what [Defendant] wants you to argue for,
because I’m going to impose what I think is necessary. Okay.” The Government,
consistent with the promise it made in the plea agreement, then asked the court “to
sentence the Defendant to the low end of the guidelines.” Notably, the Government
never argued for a life term of supervised release.
Given these undisputed facts, the Government does not appear to have
breached the plea agreement. But at worst, the Government cured the breach about
which Defendant complains prior to his actual sentencing. Defendant did not argue
1
We note U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b)(2) (2009) provides for a term of supervised
release of at least 2 years for a defendant convicted of a Class C sex offense felony.
Defendant, however, was subject to a 5-year mandatory minimum term of supervised
release under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) because he was convicted of a Class C felony
pursuant to § 2252A(a). Defendant fails to explain how the Government in this case
could lawfully argue for a 2-year term of supervised release.
3
at his sentencing hearing that the Government’s low end recommendation constituted
a breach of the plea agreement, or that the Government’s ultimate recommendation
failed to cure any prior breach. The remedy Defendant sought in his prior written
objection was for the Government to perform on its promise to recommend a
sentence at the “low end of the guidelines.” This is precisely what the Government
did. But even assuming an uncured breach on the part of the Government, that
breach was immaterial and meaningless because it did not affect the district court’s
sentencing decision. See United States v. VanDam, 493 F.3d 1194, 1202–03 (10th
Cir. 2007) (suggesting an immaterial breach of a plea agreement does not warrant
reversal); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1066 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “material”
as “[o]f such a nature that knowledge of the item would affect a person’s decision-
making”). The court told the parties that, regardless of what the Government argued,
the court would impose the term of supervised release on Defendant that it deemed
most appropriate under the circumstances. In other words, the Government’s earlier
recommendation that the court sentence Defendant to a life term of supervised
release had no bearing on the actual sentence Defendant received.
II.
Defendant’s second claim fares no better than his first. In his sentencing
memorandum, Defendant argued the district court should decline to follow U.S.S.G
§ 2G2.2 because, in particular, two of its enhancements were not based on empirical
data but rather arose from congressional revulsion to child pornography. Defendant
4
argued the enhancement for using a computer did not meaningfully distinguish
between defendants: Sure he downloaded the images to his computer, but everyone
guilty of possessing child pornography uses a computer. Defendant also argued the
enhancement based on the number of images possessed was overstated: Sure he
possessed over 600 images, but child pornography can be downloaded so quickly and
easily that anyone can amass a large collection. The Government responded by
reminding the court that it had the discretion to reject U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 on the basis
of a policy disagreement with the guideline, as some courts had done, but was
“certainly not obligated to disagree with the guideline.” The Government argued that
because § 2G2.2 was “the result of careful work by both the Sentencing Commission
and by Congress, . . . it is entitled to deference.”
In pronouncing sentence, the district court addressed “the issue of the
appropriateness of Guideline 2G2.2:”
The Defendant . . . argues the guideline range is too high. The
Defendant specifically takes issue with two enhancements applied in his
case. First the enhancement for using a computer, and, second, the
enhancement for the number of images possessed.
The court would note that courts, including the Tenth Circuit, have
found similar arguments to be, using the Tenth Circuit’s language, quite
forceful. [United States v. Regan, 627 F.3d 1348, 1354 (10th Cir.
2010)]. The court acknowledges the Sentencing Guidelines are not
binding. However, the court also acknowledges that the two
enhancements that Defendant takes issue with were either based on a
specific direction from Congress or were created directly by Congress.
The material submitted by the defendant tries to paint the picture of
Congress doing so inappropriately. This court believes that it is well
5
established that the Congress of the United States has the constitutional
power to act as it did. And the court believes that it is necessary for it
to give deference to Congress in these cases.
As Defendant does not directly object to the application of either
enhancement [by challenging the applicable guideline range] and has
acknowledged that the guideline range was correctly calculated, the
court will consider the arguments as to the applicability or the
appropriateness of Guideline 2G2.2 in its consideration of the 3553
factors.
According to Defendant, the statement “[a]nd the court believes that it is necessary
for it to give deference to Congress in these cases,” indicates the district court
committed procedural error by treating U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 as mandatory.
In Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), the Supreme Court held
a district court has the discretion to vary from the recommended guideline range
where the court determines such range is greater than necessary to achieve the
sentencing objectives of § 3553(a). Such a decision to vary may be based on a
categorical disagreement with the applicable guideline apart from individualized
consideration of § 3553(a)’s sentencing factors. See United States v. Lopez- Macias,
661 F.3d 485, 489–90 (10th Cir. 2011). A district court that fails to recognize its
discretion to vary from the guideline range based on such disagreement with a
guideline may commit procedural error. See United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d
955, 964 (9th Cir. 2010).
In this case, the court plainly acknowledged the guidelines are non-binding,
and stated it would consider Defendant’s “arguments as to the applicability or the
6
appropriateness of Guideline 2G2.2 in its consideration of the 3553 factors.” The
court’s reference to our decision in Regan satisfies us the court understood it could
reject a guideline based not only on an individualized assessment of the § 3553(a)
factors, but also on the categorical view that a guideline, or some portion thereof,
overstates the seriousness of an offense. That the district court here, after
considering both parties’ arguments and Tenth Circuit case law, believed “it [was]
necessary for it to give deference to Congress in these cases” does not mean the court
failed to recognize the scope of its discretion to vary from the guideline range
resulting from application of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, and in particular its sentencing
enhancements. Defendant argument rests entirely on the dubious assumption that the
court understood the scope of its discretion under § 3553(a), but was unaware of the
discretion it possessed under Kimbrough and its progeny—progeny extensively cited
by both parties in their written arguments. For sure, the court may have misspoke
when it said deference to § 2G2.2 was “necessary.” Deference to the guideline was
not strictly “necessary” in general terms. Yet given the court (1) understood the non-
binding nature of the guidelines, (2) noted the forcefulness of Defendant’s argument,
(3) believed the guideline “appropriate” rather than binding, and (4) sentenced
Defendant to 72 months, 6 months below the low end of the applicable guideline
range, we believe the district court well understood the scope of its discretion and
simply exercised that discretion by rejecting Defendant’s challenge to the child
pornography guideline apart from consideration of § 3553(a)’s sentencing factors.
7
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007 (reviewing a sentence of
imprisonment for abuse of discretion). “[T]he fact the court could have varied
downward based on [a] disagreement with § 2G2.2 does not mean it was required to
do so” under a categorical approach. United States v. Ilgen, 417 F. App’x 728, 736
n.8 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished).
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is—
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court,
Bobby R. Baldock
United States Circuit Judge
8