United States v. Bradley
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6754
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Bradley pleaded guilty to traveling in interstate commerce to engage in sexual conduct with a minor under 18.
- Two sentencing hearings occurred; first produced 240 months with ten years of supervised release, well above a 57–71 month guideline range.
- The first sentence relied on presumed prior acts and likely recidivism, which this court previously found insufficiently justified.
- At the second sentencing, Bradley again received 240 months and a lifetime supervised release, with the same 57–71 month guideline range and government urging 71 months.
- The district court described the offense as highly serious, used broad comparisons to other crimes, and relied in part on the 10-year mandatory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), without clear, individualized justification.
- Bradley argues the variance is excessive and not adequately tied to § 3553(a) factors; the government contends above-guideline sentences can be justified by policy considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence above the guidelines is reasonably justified | Bradley argues the variance lacks § 3553(a) justification. | Bradley contends the court provided insufficient, individualized grounds for the large departure. | Vacated; remanded for resentencing with more substantial justification. |
| Whether the court properly individualized the offense and Bradley's characteristics | Bradley claims the court did not sufficiently tailor factors to his case. | Bradley asserts the court relied on generic comparisons rather than specific circumstances. | Remand required; district court must articulate concrete, individualized reasons for variance. |
| Whether § 3553(a) factors, including disparities and mandatory minimums, were properly considered | Bradley contends the court failed to address unwarranted disparities and the § 2422(b) minimum appropriately. | Bradley argues factors like deterrence, protection of the public, and specific circumstances were not adequately weighed. | Remand; insufficient justification and consideration of § 3553(a) factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McIntyre, 531 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2008) (above-guidelines sentences require adequate reasons consistent with § 3553(a))
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (district court must justify extent of variance from Guidelines)
- United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009) (court must understand relation between guidelines and sentence)
- United States v. Higdon, 531 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2008) (courts may reject guideline policy, but must act reasonably)
- United States v. Carter, 538 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2008) (major departures require more significant justification)
- United States v. Miller, 601 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2010) (scope of 3553(a) justification for variance emphasized)
- United States v. Omole, 523 F.3d 691 (7th Cir. 2008) (discussion of required justification for departures)
- United States v. Garthus, 652 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2011) (limits on delving into guideline history when departure is extreme)