United States v. Broxmeyer
699 F.3d 265
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Broxmeyer was convicted in the Northern District of New York in 2008 on counts including two counts of producing child pornography, one count of attempting to produce, one count of transporting a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and one count of possessing child pornography; victims were teenage girls under his tutelage.
- On his first appeal, this court reversed Counts One, Two, and Four, vacated the resulting 40-year sentence, and remanded for resentencing on Counts Three and Five.
- On remand, Broxmeyer was sentenced to 30 years on Count Three and 10 years on Count Five, to be served concurrently; he challenged the sentence as procedurally flawed and substantively unreasonable.
- The district court relied on extensive PSR-based evidence of a broad pattern of sexual abuse of multiple teenage athletes, including sexual assaults and distribution of images, in exercising its § 3553(a) discretion.
- The majority holds that the district court did not err procedurally or substantively in imposing the sentence, and that the sentence falls within a reasonable range given aggravating factors; a dissent would reverse to the mandatory minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 32 objections and waivers | Broxmeyer argues district court failed to resolve factual objections as required by Rule 32(i)(3)(B). | Broxmeyer asserts error in not re-adjudicating objections on remand; district court allegedly waived the point. | No reversible error; waiver/plain-error review yields no plain error. |
| Guidelines calculations for Count Three | Broxmeyer contends misapplication of 3B1.4 and 2G2.1(b)(3) enhancements. | Broxmeyer argues enhancements were improper or duplicative because the underlying conduct involved a minor. | Enhancements properly applied; no procedural error in the Guideline calculations. |
| Pattern enhancement under § 4B1.5 | Broxmeyer contends the five-level pattern enhancement is unwarranted, especially counting the convicted offense and a now-reversed Mann Act conduct. | Majority rules that the pattern enhancement can rely on separate occasions of prohibited conduct, including untried acts, to reflect continuing danger. | The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the pattern enhancement; conduct and pattern evidence properly supported § 4B1.5(b)(1). |
| Substantive reasonableness of a 30-year sentence | Broxmeyer argues a sentence above the 15-year mandatory minimum is substantively unreasonable given the offense of attempted production. | Majority upholds a non-minimum sentence within statutory ranges, citing aggravating factors and 3553(a) considerations. | No abuse of discretion; 30-year sentence is substantively reasonable within the 15–40 year statutory range. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (1949) (sentencing may consider background and life information beyond guilt)
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011) (scope of information permissible in sentencing)
- Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (1995) (breadth of information in sentencing; not limited to guilt)
- Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) (recognizes broad sentencing considerations for background factors)
- Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (district court discretion to consider broad range of information under 3553(a))
- Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (guidelines-based maximum vs. statutory maximum; role of § 3553(a))
- Wagner-Dano, 679 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for Rule 32(i)(3)(B) issues when not timely raised)
- Arevalo, 628 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (requirement of Rule 32 procedures on remand appeals)
- Phillips, 431 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (courts may resolve sentencing disputes without evidentiary hearings if defendant is afforded opportunity to rebut)