United States v. Curtis Billups
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4121
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Curtis Billups responded to an online ad (a federal agent posing as a father) seeking sex with two minor daughters; he was arrested at the meeting and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) for enticing a minor.
- The PSR treated Billups as if convicted of two counts (a “pseudocount”) because he sought to engage with two fictitious minors, resulting in a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(d)(1).
- Billups did not object to the pseudocount enhancement at sentencing, so the appellate court reviews that claim for plain error.
- The district court imposed two supervised-release special conditions: (1) sex-offender treatment and (2) a separate mental-health treatment condition; Billups objected to the mental-health condition, so it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The record contained no explanation for imposing the separate mental-health condition and no evidence Billups had a history of mental or emotional problems.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the pseudocount enhancement, vacated the separate mental-health condition for lack of record support, and remanded for resentencing limited to reexamination of that condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2G1.3(d)(1) pseudocount enhancement applies when victims are fictitious (undercover officers) | Government: application notes treat undercover officers as minors; enhancement targets defendant's intent and applies to fictitious victims | Billups: enhancement applies only to real victims; application note 6 conflicts with Guideline text and ordinary meaning of “victim” | Affirmed: enhancement applies to fictitious minors; follow Sentencing Commission notes reflecting intent |
| Whether the district court may impose a separate mental-health treatment condition in addition to sex-offender treatment without on-the-record justification | Government: condition permissible as part of supervision | Billups: condition unsupported by record and an impermissible delegation (alternative) | Vacated: no articulation tying condition to § 3583(d)(1) factors; remand for resentencing limited to this condition |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review standard for sentencing issues)
- United States v. Wikkerink, 841 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2016) (plain-error framework elements)
- United States v. Pringler, 765 F.3d 445 (5th Cir. 2014) (follow Guideline text when application note conflicts unless manifest intent dictates otherwise)
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) (rule against superfluity in statutory interpretation)
- United States v. Smeathers, 884 F.2d 363 (8th Cir. 1989) (recognizing Sentencing Commission intent in applying Guidelines)
- United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) (enhancement targets defendant’s intent, not actual harm)
- United States v. Caravayo, 809 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2015) (vacatur/remand required when district court fails to articulate justification for special supervised-release condition)