United States v. Christopher Ted Duluk, 21-11936

Christopher Duluk appealed his conviction for possessing child pornography and an 84‑month sentence.
He sought a Franks hearing, alleging Deputy Calhoun’s search‑warrant affidavit contained false statements about a Florida "Notice of Reassignment of Permanent Florida Governmental Agency License Plate" form found in Duluk’s car.
Duluk’s only offer of proof was an investigator’s affidavit claiming the License Plate Form in the car was identical to an official copy; he did not provide an affidavit showing Calhoun knowingly or recklessly lied.
The district court denied the Franks hearing and found that, even excluding the challenged statements, the ten‑page affidavit still established a fair probability of finding evidence of impersonating law enforcement and an illegal license plate on the thumb drive.
Duluk also argued his 84‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable, challenging the application of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 enhancements and urging the court to give more weight to his character and disparity concerns; the district court acknowledged these arguments but upheld the enhancements and the sentence.
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed both the denial of a Franks hearing and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Duluk made a substantial preliminary showing to warrant a Franks hearing	Duluk: affidavit contained false/misleading statements about the License Plate Form that were necessary to probable cause	Government: Duluk failed to show the affiant knowingly or recklessly lied; even removing challenged statements probable cause remains	Denied — no Franks hearing; Court found no sufficient offer of proof and probable cause stood without the statements
Whether the 84‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Duluk: § 2G2.2 enhancements are outdated/disproportionate; court should weigh his character and disparity concerns more heavily	Government: district court considered § 3553(a) factors and properly scored enhancements; sentence is within discretion	Affirmed — sentence substantively reasonable; district court did not abuse discretion

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requires substantial preliminary showing that affidavit contained intentional or reckless falsehoods to trigger hearing)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause standard: a "fair probability")
United States v. Barsoum, 763 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing denial of Franks hearing)
United States v. Arbolaez, 450 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2006) (defendant must produce affidavit or sworn statement showing affiant’s knowing or reckless falsehoods)
United States v. Shabazz, 887 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2018) (deference to district court probable cause determinations)
United States v. Trailer, 827 F.3d 933 (11th Cir. 2016) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of substantive reasonableness of sentence)
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (district court must consider relevant § 3553(a) factors and weigh them within discretion)
United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir. 2014) (discussing criticisms of § 2G2.2 enhancements but their continued validity)