United States v. Jason Randall
924 F.3d 790
| 5th Cir. | 2019Background
- Defendant Jason Lee Randall, a registered sex offender, pled guilty to four counts: production (Count I), transportation (Count II), possession (Count III) of child pornography, and a sex-offender registration offense (Count IV).
- The production count in the indictment involved a single victim (Jane Doe 5, a 10-year-old). The PSR, adopted by the district court, identified at least 16 prepubescent victims and detailed communications showing Randall solicited and distributed sexually explicit images to induce other minors to produce images.
- The probation officer created five uncharged “pseudo counts” (involving Jane Does 3,4,7,9,10) treating each uncharged exploited minor as if a separate production count under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(d)(1) and application note 7, then applied Chapter 3 multiple-count rules to compute a combined adjusted offense level.
- The PSR’s grouping produced an adjusted offense level that the district court treated as effectively life under the Guidelines (capped at level 43), but the court varied downward and imposed concurrent non-Guidelines terms of 35, 20, and 10 years for Counts I–III and a consecutive 10 years for Count IV (aggregate 45 years).
- On appeal (plain-error review because the pseudo-count objection was not raised below), Randall argued the five pseudo counts were not "relevant conduct" to the single charged production offense and thus could not be treated as separate counts for § 3D1.4 combination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Randall) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether uncharged production acts (the five "pseudo counts") may be treated as separate counts under § 2G2.1(d)(1)/app. note 7 and combined under Chapter 3 without qualifying as "relevant conduct" to the charged production offense | Pseudo counts are not relevant conduct to Count I because the PSR/factual resume do not show the uncharged productions "occurred during the commission of" or were in preparation for the charged production or were part of the same course of conduct under § 1B1.3 | The uncharged exploitations were used to induce additional images and are encompassed as relevant conduct; § 2G2.1 commentary allows considering uncharged victims when more than one victim was exploited | Reversed: the five pseudo counts were not shown to be relevant conduct under § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) or (a)(2), so treating them as separate counts for §§ 2G2.1(d)(1)/3D1.4 was plain error requiring resentencing |
| Whether the sentencing error affected substantial rights and warrants plain-error relief | The erroneous inclusion raised the Guidelines from level 39 to a capped 43 (life range), and but-for the error a lower Guidelines range likely would have produced a different sentence | The district court’s downward variance suggests the same sentence might have been imposed, but the Guidelines error usually establishes a reasonable probability of a different outcome | Held that the error affected substantial rights and, given the circumstances, the court exercised discretion to correct the error; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (plain-error standard)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (Guidelines-range error and reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (harmless vs plain error and effect on fairness/integrity)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (clarifying "plain or obvious" standard)
- Peugh v. United States, 569 U.S. 530 (failure to calculate correct Guidelines range is procedural error)
- United States v. Velasco, 855 F.3d 691 (Fifth Circuit standard of review for preserved sentencing objections)