FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
March 4, 2013
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 12-3180
v. (D.Ct. No. 5:05-CR-40009-JAR-1)
(D. Kan.)
MARC SHEA,
Defendant-Appellant.
______________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior
Circuit Judge.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Defendant Marc Shea appeals his sentence following revocation of his
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the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.
supervised release. He asserts the district court abused its discretion in imposing
a sentence above the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”
or “U.S.S.G.”) range which he claims resulted in a procedurally and substantively
unreasonable sentence. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)
and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm Mr. Shea’s twenty-four-month term of
imprisonment following revocation of his supervised release.
I. Procedural Background
On February 23, 2005, a federal jury charged Mr. Shea with possessing
child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). After he pled
guilty, the district court sentenced him to fifty-five months imprisonment and
three years supervised release premised on general and special conditions of
supervision. Mr. Shea’s term of supervised release began on July 6, 2009.
On May 16, 2012, after at least three modifications to the conditions of Mr.
Shea’s supervised release based on his conduct, 1 Mr. Shea’s probation officer
1
On August 20, 2009, the district court ordered modification of the
conditions of Mr. Shea’s supervised release to include participation in an
approved program for substance abuse: (1) after Mr. Shea admitted to drinking
alcohol on five or six occasions while on supervised release, despite his chronic
history of alcohol misuse; and (2) based on his possession of sexually explicit
material on at least two occasions during his supervised release. On April 12,
2010, the district court also ordered modification of the conditions of Mr. Shea’s
supervised release to include his living at a residential re-entry center program as
(continued...)
-2-
petitioned the district court to revoke Mr. Shea’s supervised release, alleging he
failed to comply with a variety of ordered conditions, including the requirement
he participate in a sex offender treatment program from which he was discharged
for noncompliance. 2 The probation officer also alleged Mr. Shea violated a
condition requiring him not to possess or have under his control any material
depicting sexually explicit conduct involving adults or minors, child pornography,
or visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct–all defined in
18 U.S.C. § 2256. According to the probation officer, Mr. Shea violated this
condition, in part, by: (1) possessing a pornographic DVD and two pornographic
magazines; and (2) admitting to possessing two pornographic magazines, visiting
pornographic websites, viewing underage images and a pornographic magazine,
1
(...continued)
a result of “ongoing issues with [Mr. Shea’s] self-management.” One year later,
on March 8, 2011, the district court again modified the conditions of his
supervised release, requiring Mr. Shea to submit his person, house, residence,
vehicles, papers, business or place of employment, and any property under his
control to a search by a probation officer based on reasonable suspicion of
contraband or evidence of a violation of the condition of release. The
modification stemmed from the probation officer’s prior unannounced home
contact at Mr. Shea’s residence where Mr. Shea consented to a search resulting in
discovery of a video which Mr. Shea admitted contained pornography, in
violation of his supervised release.
2
This sex offender treatment program condition required submission to
periodic polygraph testing to determine compliance, and in that regard, the
probation officer alleged Mr. Shea failed polygraphs on February 17, 2010,
September 26, 2011, and May 2, 2012, regarding whether he viewed any
pornographic images. Later, at the revocation hearing, the government indicated
it would not “weigh heavily on the polygraph results” and, instead, submitted
other evidence in support of Mr. Shea’s violations.
-3-
and finding some pornographic literature. Finally, the probation officer alleged
Mr. Shea violated the condition requiring him to abstain from the use of alcohol
during his supervised release when he admitted consuming alcohol on various
occasions from August 13, 2009, through February 1, 2010, and tested positive
for the presence of alcohol on February 20, 2010, which Mr. Shea attributed to
Nyquil cold medication.
Thereafter, the district court conducted a hearing on the petition to revoke
Mr. Shea’s supervised release, during which the government provided
overwhelming, incriminating evidence in support of its allegations that he
violated the conditions of his supervised release. Its evidence included the
testimony of two of Mr. Shea’s probation officers, the actual pornographic DVD
and magazines found in Mr. Shea’s possession, and a computer monitoring report
showing he viewed youthful adult pornography on multiple occasions on websites
with names including words like “young,” “teen,” “youngest,” and “teenies.”
Mr. Shea testified on his own behalf, explaining he purchased pornography
toward the end of his supervised release out of “frustration” caused, in part, by
the fact he was grouped with actual child contact offenders during counseling; he
also admitted purchasing pornography with the very money he intended to use to
pay for his counseling class, stating he lacked the “skill set ... to say this is
-4-
wrong,” and that he “acted out.” He also admitted to acting out in using his
computer to go to websites with sexually explicit adult images and did not dispute
those websites had names such as youngporn.net and youngteensonly.com.
Mr. Shea also provided a copy of the psychological evaluation conducted
by his licenced psychologist which noted Mr. Shea’s own admission his initial
exposure to child pornography occurred when he was in a period of emotional
distress and browsing through standard adult pornography. However, the
psychologist also generally noted “there is no evidence that use of internet child
pornography leads to contact sexual offenses involving children,” “[s]tatistical
risk studies indicate a very low probability of recidivism (five percent or less) for
Internet sexual offenders with no history of contact offenses,” and that Mr. Shea
presented a “moderate risk” “which may be addressed in individual therapy.”
After considering and carefully outlining the evidence provided, including
Mr. Shea’s own admissions, the district court found Mr. Shea violated the
conditions of his supervised release. In thoroughly discussing Mr. Shea’s
violations, the district court first credited Mr. Shea with controlling his substance
abuse over the last two years, even though he initially violated the conditions of
his supervised release by using alcohol. However, with respect to the
pornography-related violations, the district court expressed its belief Mr. Shea did
-5-
not understand he had an addiction to child pornography, was “totally
unaccepting” of the fact he had to stay away from pornography, and had
minimized the gravity of what he did. In support, it recounted Mr. Shea’s
incriminating testimony he acted out in buying pornography and that he viewed it
online based on certain frustrations. The district court stated its belief that as
long as Mr. Shea continued to engage in viewing adult pornography, the potential
existed he would again engage in the illegal conduct of viewing child
pornography, making “the risk of recidivism ... high.” 3 It also commented on the
fact Mr. Shea had not been “amenable to supervision with respect to ...
pornography” violations, the probation office had “exhausted its resources,” and
that, other than his progress with his alcohol abuse, Mr. Shea had made no further
progress under the sex offender program than at the time of his supervised release
and merely presented “a lot of excuses and justification[s]” for his lack of
progress.
After finding Mr. Shea violated his supervised release, the district court
noted the advisory Guidelines range was five to eleven months, while 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3) allows for up to two years of custody. It then announced its intent to
3
The district court also expressed its concern over the possibility that one
who engages in addictive behavior in viewing child pornography “will act on
those desires,” even though the professional that Mr. Shea presented “seem[s] to
think Mr. Shea won’t act on this.”
-6-
impose a “tentative” sentence of two years custody with no supervised release,
stating it had considered the nature and circumstances of Mr. Shea’s violations,
his characteristics, the sentencing objectives required by statute, and the
“advisory nonbinding Chapter 7 policy statements.” In addressing these points,
the district court explained, in part: (1) it and the probation office had “gone as
far as we can go in supervising Mr. Shea,” (2) “deterrence [was] ... one of the
heaviest factors,” and (3) its belief that “even one-on-one counseling” would not
deter Mr. Shea from participating in this pornographic conduct or finding some
justification for it, including using “frustration” as an excuse and dealing with
frustration by engaging in violative conduct. It also found Mr. Shea was “not
amenable to supervision,” “[t]he compulsive nature of his continued violations
present[ed] an increased risk to the community,” and a two-year sentence would
“afford Mr. Shea time to consider his violations and plan for the future while
reviewing strategies that he’s been taught in both the substance abuse and sex
offender treatment programs.”
After hearing statements from both Mr. Shea and his counsel in objection to
the tentative sentence, the district court stated it had not changed its mind,
revoked his supervised release, and imposed a final sentence of twenty-four
months imprisonment. In announcing the final sentence, it again surmised Mr.
Shea had received three years of treatment which never progressed past the first
-7-
level, illustrated a lack of motivation and reluctance to participate in group
counseling, showed addictive behavior, and indicated a high risk of recidivism
with regard to child pornography despite three years of counseling.
II. Discussion
On appeal, Mr. Shea contends the district court imposed a procedurally and
substantively unreasonable sentence by imposing the statutory maximum sentence
of twenty-four months, rather than a sentence within the advisory Guidelines
range of five to eleven months. The government opposes the appeal.
Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and 18 U.S.C. § 3583, when
a person violates the conditions of supervised release, the district court may
modify the conditions of release or, as in this case, revoke the term of supervised
release and impose prison time. See United States v. Kelley, 359 F.3d 1302, 1304
(10th Cir. 2004); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2), (3); Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b); U.S.S.G.
§ 7B1.3(a). In imposing a sentence following revocation of supervised release,
the district court is required to consider both the Guidelines Chapter Seven policy
statements as well as the factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United
States v. Cordova, 461 F.3d 1184, 1188 (10th Cir. 2006). The Chapter Seven
policy statements apply to violations of probation and supervised release and
include advisory guideline ranges for sentences following revocation of
-8-
supervised release. See generally U.S.S.G. Ch. 7 and §§ 7B1.3, 7B1.4. With
respect to the sentencing factors, they include not only “the nature of the offense”
but the history and “characteristics of the defendant, as well as the need for the
sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime, to provide adequate deterrence, to
protect the public, and to provide the defendant with needed training or treatment
....” United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1053 (10th Cir. 2006); 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). The court may, after considering the factors set forth in § 3553(a)(1)-
(7), “revoke a term of supervised release, and require the defendant to serve in
prison all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the
offense ....” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). In this case, § 3583 authorizes the district
court to order a maximum sentence of two years in prison for his Class C felony.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
To revoke a term of supervised release, the district court must find by a
preponderance of the evidence the defendant violated a condition of that release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); United States v. Disney, 253 F.3d 1211, 1212-13
(10th Cir. 2001). As the trier of fact in a revocation proceeding, the district court
has the exclusive function of appraising the credibility of the witnesses,
determining the weight to give their testimony, and resolving any conflicts in the
evidence. See United States v. Leach, 749 F.2d 592, 600 (10th Cir. 1984).
Generally, we will not reverse a sentence following revocation of supervised
-9-
release if the record establishes the sentence is “reasoned and reasonable.”
United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236, 1241 (10th Cir. 2005). Our
appellate review for reasonableness includes both a procedural component as well
as a substantive component, which we review for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Ruby, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 323216, at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 29, 2013)
(slip op.). We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its
legal conclusions de novo. Id. However, in instances, like here, where objections
to procedural reasonableness are not contemporaneously raised, we review them
for plain error. Id. at *3.
“Procedural reasonableness addresses whether the district court incorrectly
calculated or failed to calculate the Guidelines sentence, treated the Guidelines as
mandatory, failed to consider the § 3553(a) factors, relied on clearly erroneous
facts, or failed to adequately explain the sentence.” United States v. Huckins, 529
F.3d 1312, 1317 (10th Cir. 2008). On the other hand, “[a] challenge to the
sufficiency of the § 3553(a) justifications relied on by the district court implicates
the substantive reasonableness of the resulting sentence.” United States v. Smart,
518 F.3d 800, 804 (10th Cir. 2008).
A. Procedural Reasonableness
In arguing his sentence is procedurally unreasonable, Mr. Shea contends the
-10-
district court: (1) relied on unsupported factual findings and failed to explain the
reasons for the variant sentence, (2) relied on an impermissible factor by
concluding his viewing and possession of adult pornography increased his risk of
viewing child pornography, and (3) gave undue weight to his original child
pornography offense and his possession of adult pornography while failing to
sufficiently consider his psychologist’s mitigating evaluation and the fact that
viewing adult pornography is not as serious a violation of his supervised release
as viewing child pornography.
As previously indicated, we review Mr. Shea’s procedural reasonableness
argument for plain error because he did not raise it before the district court.
Under our plain error review, Mr. Shea must demonstrate: (1) there is an error;
(2) that is plain; (3) which affects his substantial rights; and (4) which seriously
affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. 4 See
Ruby, 2013 WL 323216, at *3. To establish an error as “plain,” Mr. Shea must
establish the error was “clear or obvious.” See United States v. Thornburgh, 645
F.3d 1197, 1207-08 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 214 (2011). To show the
alleged error affected a substantial right, he must show the error was
4
These elements are conjunctive and only “[i]f all four prongs are
satisfied, may [we] then exercise our discretion to notice the forfeited error.”
United States v. Gonzalez Edeza, 359 F.3d 1246, 1250 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
-11-
“prejudicial,” so that the error “must have affected the outcome of the district
court proceedings.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). Stated
another way, he must show “a reasonable probability that, but for the error
claimed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” United States v.
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
As to the fourth prong, in order to show the error seriously affected the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings, Mr. Shea must
demonstrate that a failure to correct the alleged error would result in a
“miscarriage of justice.” See United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727,
736 (10th Cir. 2005). One can establish such an error by demonstrating “a strong
possibility of receiving a significantly lower sentence” absent the error. United
States v. Meacham, 567 F.3d 1184, 1190 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Beginning with Mr. Shea’s argument the district court relied on
unsupported factual findings in imposing his sentence, the government admits,
and the record shows, the district court mis-characterized evidence when it found
Mr. Shea admitted in August 2010 to both viewing and having an interest in
pornography when, instead, conflicting evidence existed on whether Mr. Shea
actually admitted to the probation officer on August 23, 2010, that he had viewed
pornography, and other evidence established they only talked “about his interest
-12-
in child pornography at that time,” in which he apparently denied having an
interest. However, our review of the record shows that all of the district court’s
other findings of fact concerning Mr. Shea’s violations of his supervised release
are clearly and overwhelmingly supported by the record. 5
As a result, with the exception of one finding among a plethora of others,
the record overwhelmingly supports the district court’s findings of fact showing
Mr. Shea violated the conditions of his supervised release on numerous occasions.
Thus, while the district court made one finding in error, which was plain, it did
not affect Mr. Shea’s substantial rights, as he has not shown either “a reasonable
probability that, but for the error claimed, the result of the proceeding would have
been different,” Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 81-82, or “a strong possibility of
receiving a significantly lower sentence,” absent the error, Meacham, 567 F.3d at
1190.
5
These include Mr. Shea’s: (1) admission in August 2009 to finding and
keeping graphic pornography, consuming alcohol on several occasions, and
receiving an erotic massage; (2) failure to report for drug and/or alcohol testing
on at least three occasions; (3) testing positive for alcohol on February 20, 2010;
(4) admission, when approached in December 2009, to drinking alcohol and
visiting pornographic websites with youthful names; (5) admission in April 2010
to looking at similar websites; (6) failure on August 24, 2010, to report for sex
offender treatment; (7) possession on February 7, 2011, of a pornographic DVD;
(8) admission on May 2, 2011, to having pornographic magazines at work which
officers later found in a trash bag; and (9) discharge from his sex-offender
treatment program for failing to “progress.”
-13-
In addition, the district court did not fail to adequately explain the reason
for imposing Mr. Shea’s variant sentence. Rather, it thoroughly and repeatedly
explained the reasons for the twenty-four-month sentence it imposed. We also
reject Mr. Shea’s argument the district court relied on an impermissible factor by
concluding his viewing and possession of adult pornography increased his risk of
viewing child pornography. This assessment was based on legally permissible
factors related to his prior offense and personal characteristics and history. Thus,
while his psychologist generally stated studies indicate a very low probability of
recidivism for internet sexual offenders with no history of sexual contact and
assessed Mr. Shea as a moderate risk, the evidence presented at the hearing also
established Mr. Shea admitted to the same psychologist that he began viewing
child pornography after both viewing adult pornography and becoming frustrated
with an event in his life. Given he made similar admissions at his hearing, stating
he viewed pornography during his supervised release as a means to vent his
frustration and for the purpose of acting out, one could reasonably conclude that
the very conditions that initially caused Mr. Shea to view child pornography
existed during his supervised release, and therefore, the potential existed he
would again engage in the illegal conduct of viewing child pornography. This
conclusion is bolstered by the fact Mr. Shea not only viewed adult pornography,
but on multiple occasions viewed internet websites which contained youthful
names or titles, thereby supporting the district court’s belief such a potential
-14-
existed and the risk of recidivism was high.
As a result, based on this evidence and the reasonable inferences therein,
we cannot say the district court acted unreasonably in concluding Mr. Shea’s
conduct, including his prior offense and personal and criminal history, increased
his risk of viewing child pornography beyond the general statistical risk
assessments cited by the psychologist. Because the nature of his instant offense
and his personal and criminal history are all enumerated § 3553(a) factors, rather
than legally erroneous factors, the district court did not commit an error, plain or
otherwise, in their consideration or otherwise impose a procedurally unreasonable
sentence. Finally, as to Mr. Shea’s argument on the improper weight given some
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, he raises the same argument with
respect to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, which we address
hereafter.
B. Substantive Reasonableness
Mr. Shea argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable because district
court erred in balancing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors by giving: (1) “undue
weight to [his] original offense”; (2) “overwhelming importance” to his viewing
and possession of adult pornographic magazines, which he claims is not as serious
as illegal child pornography; (3) “short shrift” to his psychologist’s evaluation
-15-
internet sexual offenders generally present a very low probability of recidivism
and he presented a “moderate risk priority”; and (4) too little weight to other
factors, such as the fact he committed no new crimes while on supervised release
and admitted his transgressions to the probation officer.
As previously noted, a challenge to the sufficiency of the § 3553(a)
justifications relied on by the district court implicates the substantive
reasonableness of the resulting sentence. Smart, 518 F.3d at 804. In reviewing
the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, “[w]e may not examine the weight a
district court assigns to various § 3553(a) factors, and its ultimate assessment of
the balance between them,” but must “give due deference to the district court’s
decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.”
Id. at 808 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Although the degree of variance
from the Guidelines range remains a consideration on appeal, it may not define
our threshold standard of review.” Id. at 807 (internal citation omitted). In
addition, we do not require the § 3553(a) factors “reach some specific level of
evidentiary weight,” and “although a district court must provide reasoning
sufficient to support the chosen variance, it need not necessarily provide
‘extraordinary’ facts to justify any statutorily permissible sentencing variance.”
Id.
-16-
In this case, the district court imposed a statutorily permissible sentencing
variance, imposing a twenty-four-month sentence, as permitted by 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3). In so doing, it provided sufficient reasoning for such a variance,
and it is evident it considered both the requisite § 3553(a) sentencing factors as
well as the Chapter Seven policy statements, including the advisory Guidelines
range. See generally U.S.S.G. Ch. 7 and §§ 7B1.3, 7B1.4. In varying upward
from the five- to eleven-month imprisonment range set out in Chapter Seven, the
district court considered Mr. Shea’s prior offense and history and characteristics,
including his repeated violations of the conditions of his supervised release. It
not only considered his cumulative conduct of non-compliance with the terms of
his supervised release, but Mr. Shea’s own testimony, when it determined he did
not understand he had an addiction to child pornography, did not accept the fact
he had to refrain from pornography, and had minimized the gravity of what he
did. We will not review on appeal the district court’s credibility determinations
applied in regards to the sufficiency of its § 3553(a) justifications. See United
States v. Hanson, 534 F.3d 1315, 1319 (10th Cir. 2008).
Moreover, as the government contends and we have already indicated, the
district court could reasonably infer, through Mr. Shea’s repeated online access to
youthful genre adult pornography, that his interest in child pornography had not
abated. In addition, it also considered and weighed conflicting evidence
-17-
presented at the revocation hearing, including Mr. Shea’s psychologist’s general
observation he presented only a moderate risk and could benefit from individual
therapy, and determined, instead, based on the other evidence presented, that the
potential existed he would again engage in the illegal conduct of viewing child
pornography and that one-on-one counseling would not deter him from it. As
previously discussed, the district court has the exclusive function of resolving any
evidentiary conflicts, and we may not examine its ultimate assessment of the
balance between the sentencing factors but give due deference to its decision that
the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.
In sum, the district court’s explanation for a variant sentence following
revocation was sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance and
we are satisfied it considered the parties’ arguments and had a reasoned basis for
the variance. The sentence on revocation of supervised release is “reasoned and
reasonable,” Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d at 1241, and Mr. Shea has not
otherwise demonstrated it is substantively unreasonable for the purpose of
warranting reversal on appeal.
-18-
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, we AFFIRM Mr. Shea’s twenty-four-month term of
imprisonment following revocation of his supervised release.
Entered by the Court:
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-19-