United States v. Anderson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 60
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Anderson pleaded guilty to one count of traveling with the intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b).
- District court sentenced him to 144 months’ imprisonment followed by a lifetime of supervised release and imposed special conditions prohibiting alcohol use and possession of sexually explicit materials.
- Facts show Anderson used a Facebook alias to groom and solicit a 13-year-old girl, arranged a meeting at a motel, provided alcohol, and paid for sexual activity; planning included additional encounters.
- Investigation revealed extensive online chats (800+) with adolescent girls; evidence of grooming, sending pornographic images, and attempts to recruit others.
- Guidelines range was 70–87 months; the government urged an upward variance; district court varied upward due to egregious conduct, disparity concerns, and public protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Anderson argues the 144-month term is substantively unreasonable. | District court properly varied upward for egregious conduct and public protection. | Sentence affirmed as substantively reasonable. |
| Proper comparison to similar offenses in sentencing | Anderson contends the court erred by comparing to internet luring with a ten-year minimum. | Court may compare to similar offenses to calibrate severity to avoid disparity. | No error; comparison to related offenses proper. |
| Alcohol prohibition on supervised release | Prohibition lacks evidentiary support and is an improper total ban. | Alcohol use contributed to the offense and history; ban is justified. | Not plain error; restriction supported by record. |
| Ban on possessing sexually explicit materials | The condition lacks individualized basis and should be reversed. | Condition is tailored to risk and public safety; individualized consideration evident, though not explicitly articulated. | Not plain error; condition reasonable in context and relation to offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hill, 552 F.3d 686 ((8th Cir.2009)) (district court may compare offenses to calibrate severity and avoid disparity)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 ((8th Cir.2009)) (abuse of discretion standard for substantive reasonableness; Gall v. United States standard)
- United States v. Bender, 566 F.3d 748 ((8th Cir.2009)) (special conditions must be individualized and reasoned)
- United States v. Kelly, 625 F.3d 516 ((8th Cir.2010)) (vacates porn prohibition without explanation; emphasizes individualized findings)
- United States v. Poitra, 648 F.3d 884 ((8th Cir.2011)) (plain-error review applied to special conditions; individualized assessment required)