United States v. Daniel Green, 608 F. App'x 383

Daniel Green pleaded guilty at trial to two counts of producing child pornography and one count of receiving it after discovery of videotapes/photographs showing him molesting his step-granddaughters and numerous downloaded child-exploitation files.
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) calculated an offense level 43 (life under Guidelines) but statutory maximums capped total exposure at 960 months; PSR recommended the 960-month maximum with consecutive terms.
Green did not object to the PSR and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement on the second day of trial.
At sentencing the district court reviewed 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, found the offenses egregious, cited victims’ ages and deterrence, and imposed the 960-month sentence.
On appeal Green raised three claims: (1) the court failed to verify that he and counsel read/discussed the PSR (Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(1)(A)); (2) his plea was involuntary because the court did not explicitly warn that sentences could run consecutively; and (3) his 960-month within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Green)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Rule 32(i)(1)(A) verification of PSR review	The court failed to personally ask Green that he and counsel read/discussed the PSR, violating Rule 32	Trial counsel told the court they had reviewed the PSR line-by-line with Green; that sufficed	No error; court may rely on counsel’s representation that defendant reviewed the PSR (Osborne/Stevens standard)
Voluntariness of plea re: consecutive sentences	Plea was involuntary because the plea colloquy gave statutory maxima per count and could lead a reasonable defendant to think combined maxs were less than consecutive totals	The PSR (which Green reviewed with counsel) explicitly stated sentences would run consecutively; courts need not explicitly warn about consecutive exposure to render a plea voluntary	Plea was voluntary; no requirement to explicitly admonish about possible consecutive sentences (Ospina/Gaskin authority)
Substantive reasonableness of 960-month sentence	80-year sentence is excessive; prior government 15-year offer shows 960 months is unreasonable	Sentence falls within Guidelines; district court adequately addressed §3553 factors and cited offense severity, victims’ ages, and deterrence	No abuse of discretion; within-Guidelines sentence entitled to presumption of reasonableness and was adequately justified (Rosenbaum/Brown)

United States v. Osborne, 291 F.3d 908 (6th Cir. 2002) (court may determine PSR review occurred without directly questioning defendant)
United States v. Stevens, 851 F.2d 140 (6th Cir. 1988) (same standard for PSR verification)
United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2007) (acknowledging counsel’s representations suffice for PSR discussion)
United States v. Ospina, 18 F.3d 1332 (6th Cir. 1994) (no requirement that court explicitly warn about consecutive sentencing for plea to be voluntary)
United States v. Rosenbaum, 585 F.3d 259 (6th Cir. 2009) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Brown, 579 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2009) (defendant must show a sentence outside Guidelines was required to meet §3553 purposes)