United States v. Bradley
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25364
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Bradley pled guilty to traveling across interstate lines to engage in sexual conduct with a minor under 18, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b).
- District court calculated a guidelines range of 57–71 months but sentenced Bradley to 240 months total.
- Bradley met a 15-year-old, T.S., in Illinois after traveling from Oregon; initial statements about the meeting and T.S.'s age evolved over time.
- Probation records showed Bradley’s computer contained child pornography and multiple sexual-conduct stories involving teenage boys, plus extensive other pornography.
- Presentence report showed no prior arrests or convictions, resulting in no criminal-history points and a base offense level adjustments leading to a 25 total level; enhancements for unduly influencing a minor and a sex act were applied, with two-level and three-level adjustments, and two levels subtracted for acceptance of responsibility.
- At sentencing, the government urged an above-range sentence; Bradley urged a modest sentence, emphasizing lack of prior criminal history and remorse; the district court castigated him and imposed a sentence far above the high end of the guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence rested on speculative facts about recidivism. | Bradley | Bradley | Remand for resentencing; due-process safeguards violated by reliance on unfounded speculation. |
| Whether the district court overstated Bradley's victim's distress and misattributed causes of that distress. | Bradley | Bradley | Remand due to improper inflammatory reasoning and lack of reliable support for asserted suffering. |
| Whether the district court properly used disputed facts from the presentence report and adhered to Rule 32 procedures on remand. | Bradley | Bradley | Remand; need explicit resolution of factual disputes before resentencing. |
| Whether the court provided a sufficiently reliable, individualized basis for an above-guidelines sentence. | Bradley | Government | Remand; the reasons relied on lacked reliable, case-specific evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness review requires no significant procedural errors)
- United States v. Pulley, 601 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2010) (due process requires reliable evidence, not speculation)
- United States v. Miller, 601 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2010) (above-guidelines need sufficiently particular and reliable basis)
- United States v. England, 555 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2009) (due process limits unfounded sentencing conjecture)
- United States v. Mays, 593 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2010) (reiterates reliability standard for sentencing determinations)