United States v. Brian Gawlik
701 F. App'x 851
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2012 Gawlik pled guilty to two counts of possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 41 months’ imprisonment and 10 years supervised release.
- While on supervised release, probation alleged five violations: viewing sexually explicit images of children, direct contact with minors, computer use/possession, dishonesty with his probation officer, and failure to register an email.
- Gawlik admitted all violations at the revocation hearing. The violations were Grade C; with Criminal History I the guidelines recommended 3–9 months and the statutory maximum on revocation was 24 months.
- Gawlik requested home confinement; the Government sought the 24‑month statutory maximum, arguing Gawlik was a danger to children and undeterred by prior prison and treatment.
- The district court revoked supervised release and imposed 24 months’ imprisonment plus 15 years supervised release, citing seriousness, deterrence, recidivism, and protection of the public. Gawlik appealed as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by considering rehabilitation (impermissible factor) | Government argued sentence appropriate given recidivism and public safety needs | Gawlik argued court impermissibly considered rehabilitative benefits of prison (Tapia error) | No plain error: court emphasized deterrence and protection; any mention of rehabilitation was minor and not outcome-determinative |
| Whether district court failed to adequately explain upward variance (procedural) | Government maintained district court provided sufficient § 3553(a) reasons | Gawlik argued insufficient explanation for 24‑month upward variance beyond guidelines | De novo review: court gave a reasoned, thorough explanation (nature/seriousness, deterrence, protection); no procedural error |
| Whether 24‑month sentence substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a) | Government argued factors (seriousness, recidivism, concealment, computer use, threat to children) supported sentence | Gawlik argued sentence too severe given mitigating factors | Sentence substantively reasonable; district court properly weighed factors and discretion on relative weight controls |
| Whether 15‑year supervised release term was substantively unreasonable | Government argued long term necessary to protect children given history and detection of violations | Gawlik argued supervised‑release term excessive | Court found 15 years reasonable based on defendant’s history and public protection needs |
Key Cases Cited
- Sweeting v. United States, 437 F.3d 1105 (11th Cir. 2006) (review standard for revocation sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse of discretion / reasonableness review of sentencing)
- Cubero v. United States, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014) (procedural‑error examples in sentencing review)
- Pugh v. United States, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (burden on challenger to show sentence unreasonable)
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (prohibition on imposing or lengthening prison to promote rehabilitation)
- Vandergrift v. United States, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (applying Tapia to supervised‑release revocation and assessing minor consideration of rehabilitation)
- Livesay v. United States, 525 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2008) (requirements for district court explanation when varying from guidelines)
- Parks v. United States, 823 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 2016) (de novo review when § 3553(c)(2) explanation raised first on appeal)
- Clay v. United States, 483 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2007) (district court’s discretion in weighing § 3553(a) factors)
- Madden v. United States, 733 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2013) (elements of plain‑error review)