United States v. Jason Brown
680 F. App'x 251
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jason Michael Brown convicted of transportation (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1), (b)(1)) and possession (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(b), (b)(2)) of child pornography.
- Sentenced to 240 months imprisonment; appeal argues potential sentencing error.
- Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding no meritorious issues but questioned the five-level Guidelines enhancement for a pattern of activity involving sexual abuse of a minor.
- District court relied on the child victim’s interview statements to find multiple instances of abuse and applied the enhancement; calculated and treated the Guidelines as advisory and considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
- Fourth Circuit reviewed for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard and reviewed Guidelines calculations de novo and facts for clear error.
- Court affirmed, finding no procedural error and no meritorious issues for appeal; allowed counsel to notify defendant of Supreme Court petition rights and to move to withdraw if warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred applying 5-level "pattern of activity" enhancement | Enhancement improper because facts do not support multiple instances of abuse | Victim interview statements support finding of multiple abuses and justify enhancement | Affirmed — court did not clearly err in crediting victim statements and applying enhancement |
| Whether Guidelines calculation/procedural sentencing errors occurred | Sentence procedurally unreasonable | District court correctly calculated Guidelines, treated them as advisory, and considered § 3553(a) factors | Affirmed — sentencing was procedurally reasonable |
| Whether sentence was based on clearly erroneous facts | Facts underpinning sentence were disputed | Court relied on admissible findings and not clearly erroneous facts | Affirmed — sentence not based on clearly erroneous facts |
| Whether any meritorious appellate issues exist (Anders) | Counsel suggests no non-frivolous issues except enhancement question | Government urges affirmance | Affirmed — no meritorious issues; Anders procedure followed |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. United States, 804 F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2015) (articulates deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for sentence review)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (requires review of procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- Cox v. United States, 744 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2014) (explains de novo review of legal Guidelines conclusions and clear-error review of factual findings)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (framework for counsel filing brief when no meritorious appellate issues exist)