United States v. Batchu
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14545
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Defendant Mani Batchu, a 29-year-old psychiatry resident specializing in adolescents, met a 15‑year‑old ("Minor A") online, engaged in a multi‑month sexual relationship, traveled interstate multiple times to meet her, and recorded videos of sexual conduct found on his computer.
- State courts issued restraining orders and charged Batchu with statutory rape; he repeatedly violated orders and continued contact, including traveling to Florida and having intercourse multiple times.
- Federal indictment charged eight counts; Batchu pled guilty to five counts under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422(b), 2423(a), 2423(b), with a plea agreement that stipulated certain guideline enhancements and an appellate waiver for sentences 293 months or less.
- For sentencing the district court applied U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1 base level and added enhancements (age of victim, sexual act, internet use, obstruction of justice, and two‑level increase based on video of a separate Victim C it found to be a minor), yielding an adjusted offense level of 40 and Guidelines range 292–365 months; court imposed 365 months imprisonment and 360 months supervised release.
- On appeal Batchu challenged (1) the district court’s finding that Victim C was under 18 and related enhancements (including whether the videos were "sexually explicit" and constituted "relevant conduct"); (2) the obstruction enhancement; (3) procedural and substantive reasonableness of the 365‑month sentence; and (4) whether his concurrent 365‑month terms exceeded statutory maxima for some counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Batchu) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court clearly erred in finding Victim C was under 18 from videos | Court needed expert testimony; videos show a post‑pubescent person so age uncertain | Videos (multiple, moving images, demeanor, speech) allow reliable preponderance finding of minority without expert | Finding that Victim C was <18 was not clearly erroneous; no expert required at sentencing (preponderance standard) |
| Whether the Victim C video shows "sexually explicit conduct" (lasciviousness) and whether Dost factors required | Dost factors should control; video not lascivious | Dost is not dispositive; case‑specific inquiry supports lascivious finding based on nudity, presentation, and coaxing | No plain error: videos were sexually explicit and Dost factors are not binding |
| Whether Victim C video constituted "relevant conduct" (timing) for guideline enhancement | Record silent on production date; cannot assume video was made during offense; plain error or remand required | Defendant waived or failed to preserve the timing issue; no record showing prejudice from inclusion; further fact‑finding might have confirmed timing | On plain error review defendant fails to show prejudice; enhancement as relevant conduct stands |
| Validity of obstruction‑of‑justice two‑level enhancement | Challenges bases and whether court relied on counseling victim to lie | Government relied on multiple grounds, including defendant’s instruction to Minor A to lie; record supports obstruction | Enhancement justified—court relied on defendant’s urging Minor A to lie; sufficient independent ground makes any other error harmless |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness of 365‑month sentence | Court failed to adequately address §3553(a) factors and mitigation; sentence is excessive | District court considered §3553(a), rejected mitigation as not persuasive, emphasized extreme, repeated exploitation and need for deterrence | Sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable; within Guidelines and defensible given defendant’s persistent, dangerous conduct |
| Whether 365‑month term exceeded statutory maximums for some counts (plain‑error) | Three counts have 360‑month statutory max; concurrent 365 exceeds those counts’ maxima | Sentences on counts with life‑max allowed defendant to reach 365 months; remand unnecessary because overall imprisonment would not change | Error harmless under plain‑error review because the 365 months is within statutory limits of other counts and defendant would serve same term |
Key Cases Cited
- Vargas v. United States, 560 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (sentencing facts drawn from plea colloquy and PSI)
- Hoey v. United States, 508 F.3d 687 (1st Cir. 2007) (government bears preponderance burden at sentencing)
- Katz v. United States, 178 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 1999) (expert testimony on age may be required case‑by‑case)
- Riccardi v. United States, 405 F.3d 852 (10th Cir. 2005) (jury can assess age from images without expert)
- Rodriguez‑Pacheco v. United States, 475 F.3d 434 (1st Cir. 2007) (no expert required to determine real vs. computer‑generated images)
- Turbides‑Leonardo v. United States, 468 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2006) (plain‑error review and prejudice when record is silent on a sentencing predicate)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (standard for plain‑error review)
- Frabizio v. United States, 459 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2006) (Dost factors are not dispositive; case‑specific inquiry into lasciviousness)
- Amirault v. United States, 173 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1999) (statutory "lasciviousness" inquiry is case‑specific)