983 F.3d 318
8th Cir.2020Background:
- Defendant Brian Barthman pled guilty to possession of child pornography involving prepubescent minors after police recovered computers with over 500 images and at least one video.
- At initial sentencing the district court calculated Criminal History Category III and imposed 151 months; this Court vacated and remanded for plain error in criminal history calculation (Barthman I).
- On remand the district court denied Barthman’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and resentenced him to 151 months (CHC II; guideline range 135–168 months), to run concurrently with state sentences.
- The district court also imposed a $5,000 special assessment under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, 18 U.S.C. § 3014.
- Barthman’s PSR showed a negative net worth of about $166,903, large liabilities (including substantial student loans), few assets, and concurrent long state sentences.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the 151-month sentence and denial of the plea-withdrawal motion, but vacated the $5,000 special assessment as imposed in error.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of 151-month sentence | Sentence should be lower on remand due to postsentencing rehabilitation and proportionality to original bottom-of-range sentence | Sentence within amended guideline range; district properly weighed §3553(a) factors and emphasized severity and public protection | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; district considered factors and permissibly weighed severity over rehabilitation |
| Imposition of $5,000 special assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3014 | Barthman is indigent: substantial negative net worth and limited future ability to pay; assessment should be vacated | Court found some future ability to pay; statute mandates assessment for non-indigent defendants | Reversed — district clearly erred in finding non-indigency given PSR showing large negative net worth and low likelihood of payment |
| Denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea | Plea withdrawal sought based on lack of understanding of waived rights and ineffective assistance of counsel | District court found the motion meritless after review | Affirmed — district did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barthman, 919 F.3d 1118 (8th Cir. 2019) (prior panel vacated original sentence and remanded for resentencing)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain-error standard for appellate review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for review of sentencing reasonableness)
- United States v. Duke, 932 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2019) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences; postsentencing rehabilitation guidance)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion framework for sentencing)
- United States v. Kelley, 861 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2017) (indigency under §3014 requires analysis of current finances and future ability to pay)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (postsentencing rehabilitation may be considered but does not compel a reduced sentence)
- United States v. Banderas, 858 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2017) (discusses proportionality between initial and amended sentences)
- United States v. Shepherd, 922 F.3d 753 (6th Cir. 2019) (upheld §3014 assessment for a defendant with only slight negative net worth; distinguished here)