United States v. Becker
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7398
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Becker sexually abused his minor daughter and, separately, his son, leading to state convictions and prison terms.
- State court sentenced Becker in 2009 to two concurrent 30-year terms with five years suspended for continuous sexual abuse of two minors.
- Federal indictment followed discovery of child-pornography images; Becker pled guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor in 2010.
- PSR calculated a guidelines range of 168–210 months; no objection to the calculation.
- District court sentenced Becker to 210 months, consecutive to his state sentence, after determining the conduct was egregious and disturbing.
- Becker challenges Rule 32 disclosure of the judge’s parole-board knowledge and application of § 5G1.3(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 32 disclosure and plain-error standard | Becker argues undisclosed parole-board knowledge tainted sentencing. | Government contends comments were academic and did not affect the sentence. | No plain error; statements were not a basis for a different sentence. |
| Application of § 5G1.3(b) to Becker’s sentence | Becker contends credit for time served and concurrency with state sentence were required. | Government argues § 5G1.3(b) does not apply because prior state offenses were not relevant conduct to the instant offense. | § 5G1.3(b) not applicable; sentence permissible under § 5G1.3(c) and 18 U.S.C. § 3584; consecutive sentence sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovelace v. United States, 565 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error analysis for undisclosed information at sentencing; not controlling here)
- United States v. Molnar, 590 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard for Rule 32 disclosure)
- United States v. Rutherford, 599 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2010) (guideline § 5G1.3 considerations and § 3584 factors providing discretion for consecutive sentences)
- United States v. Lone Fight, 625 F.3d 523 (8th Cir. 2010) (consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing under § 3584)
- Pirani v. United States, 406 F.3d 543 (8th Cir. 2005) (plain-error framework and impact on sentence)
- United States v. Austad, 519 F.3d 431 (8th Cir. 2008) (record need not recite every § 3553(a) factor when within guidelines range)
- Dillon v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2683 (2010) (whether Guideline 1B1.10 remains binding)