United States v. Brooks, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 155

Brooks pled guilty to three federal counts involving sexual offenses against minors: enticement/coercion under § 2422(b), travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct under § 2423(b), and distribution of child pornography under § 2252A(a)(2)(A).
The PSR treated Counts 1–2 under § 2G2.1 and Count 3 under § 2G2.2, with a cross-reference to § 2G2.1, yielding a combined guideline calculation.
The district court downwardly departed from Brooks’s initial range after finding his history-of-criminality was overstated, resulting in a GH range of 262–327 months.
Brooks’s sentencing hearing emphasized the offenses’ serious nature and Brooks’s dangerous behavior, including travel with condoms and a camera, graphic discussions with the undercover actors, and a prior sexual relationship with a minor.
Brooks challenged the sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable, raising four principal arguments about mitigation, § 3553(a) factors, the structure of § 2G2.2/2G2.1, and the weight given to nature-of-the-offense factors; the court affirmed the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness: whether the court ignored Brooks's mitigation	Brooks argues the court did not address his drug problem, depression, sexual addiction, and childhood abuse.	Brooks contends these factors require below-Guidelines sentencing or at least explicit consideration.	No error; court expressly addressed these factors and did not abuse discretion.
§ 3553(a) factors considered and sentencing explanation	Brooks claims the court failed to consider all § 3553(a) factors and rejected mitigating evidence.	Brooks asserts insufficient explanation for the chosen sentence.	Court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors and provided a reasonable explanation.
Substantive reasonableness: validity of § 2G2.2/2G2.1 cross-reference and empirical basis	Brooks contends § 2G2.2 is empirically unsupported and its cross-reference to § 2G2.1 produced a punitive sentence.	The Guidelines were properly applied; empirical support for § 2G2.1 exists and § 2G2.2 had limited impact on Counts 1–2.	Application of §§ 2G2.1 and 2G2.2 did not render the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
Weight given to nature and seriousness of the offense	The district court overemphasized offense gravity in setting sentence.	Weight on offense gravity was permissible given the egregious conduct and § 3553(a) factors.	No abuse of discretion; within-range sentence with proper consideration of factors.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness of sentences; procedural sufficiency)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (context for reviewing sentencing decisions; brevity vs. detail in explanations)
United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (procedural sufficiency; standard for reasonableness review)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc; plain-error framework for new arguments raised on appeal (Bostic rule))
United States v. Marcus, U.S. , 130 S. Ct. 2159 (2010) (plain-error considerations in sentencing appeals)
United States v. Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2009) (district court may reject guideline range for policy reasons under Kimbrough)
United States v. Mikowski, 332 Fed. Appx. 250 (6th Cir. 2009) (treatment of empirical data claim; application of guidelines within reasonable range)
United States v. Janosko, 355 Fed. Appx. 892 (6th Cir. 2009) (district courts may reject guideline sentences for policy disagreements)