United States v. Hause
690 F. App'x 68
2d Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Frank Hause pleaded guilty to receiving, possessing, and distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.
- District Court imposed a within-Guidelines sentence: 151 months’ imprisonment and life supervised release.
- Hause challenged his sentence on appeal, arguing (1) inadequate explanation for a within-Guidelines sentence, (2) failure to consider all § 3553(a) factors, and (3) substantive unreasonableness because the court overemphasized victim harm.
- Hause did not raise these objections in the district court; appellate review of procedural challenges is therefore for plain error.
- The Second Circuit reviewed both procedural and substantive reasonableness and affirmed the district court’s sentence in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of district court’s explanation for a within-Guidelines sentence | Gov: District court provided sufficient reasons and considered submissions and PSR | Hause: Court failed to adequately explain why it imposed the Guideline sentence | Affirmed — explanation was adequate: court reviewed submissions, heard argument, cited §3553(a) factors and public harm as basis for low-end Guideline sentence |
| Consideration of §3553(a) factors | Gov: Presume court considered §3553(a) when it reviewed submissions and PSR | Hause: Court did not explicitly recite or consider all §3553(a) factors | Affirmed — court is presumed to have considered §3553(a); no requirement to recite each factor; record shows consideration |
| Substantive reasonableness (weight given to victim harm) | Gov: Sentence reasonable given offense seriousness and factors considered | Hause: Court over-relied on harm to children in images, making sentence substantively unreasonable | Affirmed — within-Guidelines sentence not shockingly high or otherwise unsupportable; no reweighing warranted |
| Standard of review for unpreserved challenges | Gov: Plain-error review applies to unpreserved procedural claims | Hause: Contends error substantial enough to warrant reversal despite lack of preservation | Affirmed — plain-error standard applies; even under that standard no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Villafuerte, 502 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2007) (plain-error review and need for sentencing explanation)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts must adequately explain sentences and may deviate from Guidelines with reasoned explanation)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (Guidelines sentence may require less explanation)
- United States v. Verkhoglyad, 516 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2008) (presumption that district court considered §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Wagner-Dano, 679 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (no magic words required to show consideration of §3553(a))
- United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2009) (substantive review as a backstop for extreme sentences)
- United States v. Thavaraja, 740 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2014) (noting unresolved question whether plain-error review applies to unpreserved substantive reasonableness claims)
- United States v. Doe, 297 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2002) (plain-error standard formulation)