United States v. David Turner
687 F. App'x 520
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2015 David Turner (24) met N.M. (14) on Facebook; they exchanged sexual messages and nude images, and Turner later shared N.M.’s images and a video with an adult third party.
- Turner travelled from Tennessee to Ohio, picked up N.M., and they engaged in sexual acts in a hotel; Turner was arrested while attempting to travel with her.
- Turner pled guilty to four counts involving sexual exploitation, enticement, travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, and distribution of child pornography; no plea agreement.
- At sentencing the PSR applied a two‑level enhancement for undue influence (USSG § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B)) and attempted to apply a computer‑use enhancement but cited a nonexistent subsection, creating confusion about which Guideline was used.
- The district court calculated an offense level of 37 (after acceptance), a Guidelines range of 210–262 months, and sentenced Turner to 238 months’ imprisonment; Turner appealed challenging the two enhancements and reasonableness of the sentence.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the undue‑influence enhancement but vacated and remanded because the district court failed to identify and explain which computer‑use enhancement it applied, producing procedural error.
Issues
| Issue | Turner’s Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rebuttable presumption of undue influence (≥10‑year age gap) was overcome | Turner: conduct was voluntary; he lacked resources to influence; mentally/emotionally younger; age gap later fell to 9 years | District court/US: record shows manipulation of a vulnerable minor who viewed Turner as a "savior"; presumption not rebutted | Enhancement for undue influence upheld |
| Whether a two‑level computer‑use enhancement was properly applied | Turner: PSR cited a nonexistent subsection; challenged enhancement and asked district court to identify correct Guideline | PSR, district court, and Government were inconsistent/confused about which Guideline applied; district court overruled objection but did not specify which provision | Remanded: district court failed to identify/explain the correct computer‑use enhancement; procedural error |
| Whether district court’s Guidelines calculation and explanation were procedurally sound | Turner: argued errors in Guidelines application and inadequate consideration of his background | District court: overruled objections but did not adequately explain the computer‑use enhancement; otherwise calculated offense level and range | Procedural error limited to inadequate explanation of computer enhancement; resentencing required |
| Whether sentence was substantively unreasonable | Turner: sentence excessive given background and mental‑health history | Court: did not reach substantive review because procedural error required remand first | Substantive reasonableness not decided (remand for resentencing) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework for sentencing)
- United States v. Erpenbeck, 532 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. standard on sentencing review)
- United States v. Tristan‑Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629 (consideration of § 3553(a) factors in substantive review)
- United States v. Stafford, 721 F.3d 380 (standard for reviewing Guidelines application; mixed questions of law and fact)
- United States v. Hayes, 135 F.3d 435 (review for clear error of sentencing facts)
- United States v. Lay, 583 F.3d 436 (evidence required to show minor was influenced/vulnerable)
- United States v. Wise, [citation="278 F. App'x 552"] (discussing rebuttable presumption when participant is ≥10 years older)