United States v. John Nania, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15575

Nania sexually abused multiple young girls over several years and made pornographic images of the abuse.
Illinois state court convictions included crimes against S.M. (the stepdaughter) and A.M. (the babysitter) with long aggregate sentences.
Federal authorities charged Nania with producing child pornography; he pled guilty to a single count concerning a specific image (Digital Image 2).
The district court sentenced Nania to 330 months in federal prison and ordered it to run consecutively to his state sentences.
Nania appealed, challenging whether the federal sentence should run concurrently with state terms under U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 and related guidance.
The court’s analysis focused on the application of § 5G1.3(b) vs § 5G1.3(c) and the use of Application Note 3(D) to resolve competing rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 5G1.3(b) or § 5G1.3(c) governs running federal and state terms.	Nania argues § 5G1.3(b) applies, mandating concurrent sentences.	The district court correctly applied § 5G1.3(c) with discretionary concurrent/consecutive options.	Procedural choice under § 5G1.3 was proper; § 5G1.3(c) applied and allowed discretion.
Whether Application Note 3(D) properly governs a complex case with multiple undischarged terms.	Note 3(D) should direct the court to fashion a sentence under § 5G1.3(c).	Note 3(D) supports using different rules to fashion an appropriate sentence.	Application Note 3(D) properly invoked; it guides discretionary sentencing when multiple rules appear to apply.
Whether the district court adequately considered 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and explained its reasoning.	Nania argues the court failed to properly justify the consecutive term.	Court provided explicit discussion of § 3553(a) factors and their impact on the sentence.	Court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors; no abuse of discretion.
Whether the resulting sentence is substantively reasonable given the conduct and deterrence goals.	Below-Guidelines sentence and consecutive structure are unreasonable given life-term concerns.	Below-Guidelines yet tailored to deterrence and protecting victims; consistent with the offenses.	Sentence deemed substantively reasonable; within the district court’s discretion.

Carrasco-de-Jesús v. United States, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (describes § 5G1.3 framework and burden)
Vizcarra v. United States, 668 F.3d 516 (7th Cir. 2012) (relevant conduct defined; offense level adjustments)
Campbell v. United States, 617 F.3d 958 (7th Cir. 2010) (Guidelines discretion under § 5G1.3(C))
Garner v. United States, 454 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2006) (courts should consider Guidelines recommendations)
Kieffer v. United States, 681 F.3d 1143 (10th Cir. 2012) (defendant bears burden to show applicability of § 5G1.3(b))
Armstead v. United States, 552 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2008) (discusses § 5G1.3 application in complex cases)
Broadnax v. United States, 536 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2008) (discussion of § 5G1.3 application)
Dean v. United States, 414 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. 2005) (guidance on § 3553(a) factors and procedures)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness standard on appeal; abuse of discretion review)
Jung v. United States, 473 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2007) (requires meaningful review with adequate explanation)
Marion v. United States, 590 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2009) (review standards for district court sentencing decisions)
Williams v. United States, 425 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2005) (consideration of 3553(a) factors)
Tanner v. United States, 628 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2010) (discusses disparity concerns in sentencing)