United States v. Henzel
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3119
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Henzel pleaded guilty to traveling across state lines to engage in illicit sex with a 12-year-old (18 U.S.C. § 2423(b)).
- District court sentenced him to 135 months, above the calculated Guidelines range the parties believed applied.
- Probation concluded cross-reference to § 2A3.1 ( aggravated sexual abuse under § 2241/2242) should apply; defense objected.
- District court ultimately used § 2G1.3 (base level 24) with additional adjustments, yielding a Guidelines range of 70–87 months before variances.
- The court gave an above-Guidelines variance citing coercion, manipulation, and harm to the child and family, plus Henzel’s age disparity and misrepresentation.
- On appeal, Henzel contends the variance is not sufficiently particularized and that the cross-reference to § 2A3.1 was improperly omitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cross-reference to § 2A3.1 should have been applied | Henzel argues the cross-reference does not apply because no force/threat was shown. | Henzel argues the district court misapplied the cross-reference by rejecting § 2242-based coercion. | Cross-reference to § 2A3.1 should have been applied; sentence otherwise calculated within range. |
| Whether the variance reasons were sufficiently particularized to Henzel | Henzel contends reasons were generic, not individual to him. | The district court gave individualized, case-specific factors justifying the variance. | Yes; reasons were sufficiently particularized to justify above-Guidelines sentence. |
| Whether the sentence is reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) | The sentence is unreasonably high given Guidelines range and factors. | Variance factors and personal history justify the sentence as reasonable. | Affirmed as reasonable; even if viewed above the range, the court’s justification aligns with § 3553(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Boyles, 57 F.3d 535 (7th Cir.1995) (broad definition of fear under § 2242)
- United States v. Holly, 488 F.3d 1298 (10th Cir.2007) (fear vs force in § 2242 analysis)
- United States v. Lucas, 157 F.3d 998 (5th Cir.1998) (fear may be inferred from circumstances)
- United States v. Johns, 15 F.3d 740 (8th Cir.1994) (§ 2242 envisions lesser degree of fear than § 2241)
- United States v. Gavin, 959 F.2d 788 (9th Cir.1992) (example of fear-based § 2242 conviction despite lack of threats)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (case regarding reasonableness review of sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (framework for reviewing variances under 3553(a))
- Hill, 645 F.3d 900 (7th Cir.2011) (application of 3553(a) factors in the Seventh Circuit)
- United States v. Jordan, 435 F.3d 693 (7th Cir.2006) (upheld an above-Guidelines sentence with particularized aggravating factors)