United States v. James Arbaugh, 951 F.3d 167

Background

Arbaugh, a Virginia resident working in Haiti, sexually abused multiple Haitian minor boys over several years and later admitted the abuse to a counselor, who reported him to law enforcement.
He pleaded guilty to traveling in foreign commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c)/(e); a PSR applied a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) for undue influence based on a 10+ year age disparity.
The district court overruled Arbaugh’s objection to that enhancement, calculated an offense level of 38 (Guidelines range 235–295 months), and sentenced him to 276 months’ imprisonment and lifetime supervised release.
The court also imposed several special conditions of supervised release, including four computer-related conditions (warrantless inspections, temporary removal of devices, ban on encryption, and mandated monitoring software/hardware).
On appeal Arbaugh raised five challenges (the enhancement, § 3553(a)(6) disparity explanation, substantive reasonableness, lifetime supervised release explanation, and the four computer-related conditions); the Fourth Circuit affirmed all aspects except it vacated and remanded the four computer-related conditions for lack of an individualized explanation.

Issues

Issue	Arbaugh's Argument	United States' Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by applying 2-level § 2G1.3(b)(2)(B) undue-influence enhancement based on age disparity	Enhancement double-counted victim’s age (already captured by other guideline provisions) and the commentary’s rebuttable presumption improperly shifts burden and conflicts with § 6A1.3	Age-disparity presumption is a permissible, rebuttable evidentiary aide; different aggravating factor (undue influence) than mere victim age	Affirmed: enhancement proper; no impermissible double-counting and government satisfied burden by preponderance
Whether court failed to address § 3553(a)(6) (avoid unwarranted disparities) adequately	Court did not explain how sentence avoided disparity with other cases (e.g., Bollinger)	Court considered arguments and provided individualized reasons; need not address every comparison at length	Affirmed: no reversible procedural error; sentencing explanation was sufficient
Whether 276-month sentence is substantively unreasonable	Sentence is excessive; long term will deter disclosure/cooperation and is greater than necessary	District court balanced heinous conduct, multiple victims, grooming, and mitigating cooperation; within-Guidelines sentence entitled to presumption of reasonableness	Affirmed: sentence substantively reasonable
Whether lifetime supervised release must be separately justified	Court failed to explain why lifetime (vs five years) was necessary	Lifetime release consistent with statute and Guidelines; court discussed supervised release as part of holistic § 3553(a) analysis	Affirmed: procedural explanation adequate given individualized assessment and Guidelines recommendation
Whether court procedurally erred by not explaining four computer-related special conditions	Court gave no individualized reasons for imposing potentially burdensome, lifelong computer conditions	Government points to record facts and sex-offender registration but cannot substitute for district court’s explanation	Reversed as to these conditions: vacated and remanded for resentencing on those conditions only

Key Cases Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard of review for sentence reasonableness)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Armel, 585 F.3d 182 (4th Cir. 2009) (district must explain special conditions)
United States v. Ross, 912 F.3d 740 (4th Cir. 2019) (failure to explain lifetime special conditions not harmless)
United States v. Reevey, 364 F.3d 151 (4th Cir. 2004) (double-counting allowed unless expressly prohibited)
United States v. Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2013) (no requirement to address every §3553(a) factor in detail)
United States v. Bollinger, 798 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2015) (sentencing comparator relied on by defendant)
United States v. Diosdado-Star, 630 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2011) (reasonableness review framework)
United States v. Blauvelt, 638 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2011) (government’s burden to prove Guidelines facts by preponderance)
United States v. Jones, 31 F.3d 1304 (4th Cir. 1994) (government bears burden of proving sentencing enhancements)