United States v. Belanger
683 F. App'x 38
2d Cir.2017Background
- In 2013–2014, then-21-year-old Brian Belanger solicited a 10-year-old via an online game to produce at least 15 sexually explicit videos by coercing the child with false threats to save Belanger’s life.
- Videos instructed the child to perform severe sexual acts; Belanger later confessed and admitted to prior sexual abuse of several young children.
- Belanger pleaded guilty (no plea agreement) to five counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
- Sentencing Guidelines produced an advisory life range (offense level 43, CH I); statutory maximum per count is 30 years, yielding a Guidelines calculation of consecutive 30-year terms under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.2(d).
- The district court imposed a below-Guidelines aggregate sentence of 480 months (40 years) by running some counts consecutively and others concurrently.
- Belanger appealed, arguing his sentence was substantively unreasonable and that consecutive sentences (and partial non-grouping) were unwarranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of 40-year sentence | Government: sentence warranted given offense gravity and need to protect the public | Belanger: sentence excessive given treatment prospects, supervised release, and registration will mitigate risk | Affirmed — sentence not "shockingly" unreasonable; district court permissibly weighed public-protection concerns |
| Consecutive sentences / partial consecutive on Counts 1–3 | Government: district court has discretion to impose consecutive terms; Guidelines allowed consecutive 30-year terms | Belanger: offenses were part of a single plan, so consecutive terms and partial consecutiveness were improper | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion in imposing partially consecutive terms to effectuate a below-Guidelines aggregate sentence |
| Grouping of counts under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2 | Government: not necessary; Guidelines result already allowed consecutive terms | Belanger: counts should have been grouped as closely related, lowering Guidelines range | Even if grouping error, harmless — correcting it would not change Guidelines offense level or range |
| District court’s consideration of defendant’s mitigation arguments | Government: judge balanced rehabilitation prospects against danger to children | Belanger: court gave excessive weight to public-safety factor and failed to address his arguments | Rejected — district court adequately considered factors; no requirement to address every argument or each § 3553(a) factor individually |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard for substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (identifying sentences that damage administration of justice)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (deference to district court’s weighting of § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Brown, 843 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016) (Guidelines treatment when range exceeds statutory maximum)
- United States v. Lucas, 745 F.3d 626 (2d Cir. 2014) (district court discretion on concurrent vs. consecutive terms under 18 U.S.C. § 3584)
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (no requirement to address every argument or § 3553(a) factor individually)
- United States v. Cramer, 777 F.3d 597 (2d Cir. 2015) (harmless error doctrine for Guidelines calculation errors)
- United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (2d Cir. 2006) (deference to district court on weight of aggravating/mitigating factors)