United States v. Daniel Bonnett
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19790
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Daniel Bonnett pled guilty to one count of receipt and distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).
- District court imposed a below-guidelines sentence: 15 years imprisonment and 25 years supervised release.
- The court applied a two-level obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based on a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation finding Bonnett was malingering (feigning incompetence).
- The psychiatric evaluation and supporting observations noted discrepant behavior with medical staff, refusal to participate in tests (including malingering checks), and incriminating recorded jail calls.
- The court also applied a five-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for distributing child pornography for a "thing of value," based on evidence Bonnett traded images of young girls for images of young boys.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether malingering can support an obstruction enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 | Government: malingering is obstructive conduct justifying the enhancement | Bonnett: allowing enhancement for malingering chills the right to pursue competency proceedings | Court: Yes; malingering may support § 3C1.1 enhancement (joins other circuits) |
| Whether Rule 32 was violated by lack of factual findings supporting enhancements | Government: no Rule 32 problem because defendant raised no factual objections to the PSR or evaluation | Bonnett: district court failed to resolve factual disputes as required by Rule 32 | Court: No violation—Bonnett did not object to facts, so no findings were required |
| Whether distribution for a "thing of value" under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) applies | Government: trading "girl stuff" for "boy stuff" shows items of value exchanged | Bonnett: contested enhancement | Court: Enhancement proper—record supports trade as exchange of value |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wilbourn, 778 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2015) (upheld obstruction enhancement based on malingering)
- United States v. Batista, 483 F.3d 193 (3d Cir. 2007) (same)
- United States v. Patti, 337 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2003) (same)
- United States v. Greer, 158 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 1998) (lead circuit decision rejecting chilling-rights argument; analogizes to perjury law)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (Supreme Court upheld obstruction enhancement for perjury; defendant has no right to lie)
- United States v. Fontenot, 14 F.3d 1364 (9th Cir. 1994) (refusal to participate in court-ordered testing can support obstruction enhancement)