United States v. Michael Begin
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20913
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Begin pleaded guilty to two federal counts for using the internet and a cellular phone to solicit sexual activity from a minor and to transfer an obscene image; the target was a 14-year-old girl met via MySpace and intended to be taken to a room for sex.
- FBI sting; Begin, age 33, appeared at a meeting in Bradford, Pennsylvania; seized with a knife, handcuffs, and a condom; admitted sending explicit messages and photos.
- PSR calculated base offense level 28, +2 for computer use, -3 for acceptance of responsibility, +5 under 4B1.5(b)(1) for repeat/dangerous sex offender against minors, total level 32; criminal history category IV due to multiple prior offenses against minors, including rape of a seven-year-old.
- Guidelines range was 168–210 months; Count One carried 10-year minimum and life maximum, Count Two carried up to 10 years; Government sought an upward departure for more severe criminal history and conduct; Begin sought a downward variance based on disparity with state statutory rape penalties (max 10 years) and federal statutory rape penalties (max 15 years) for related conduct.
- The District Court granted an upward departure, recalibrated to criminal history category V and a heightened range (188–240 months); sentenced Begin to 240 months (top of adjusted range) plus life supervised release; court acknowledged §3553(a) factors but did not adequately address Begin’s disparity arguments; the opinion vacates the sentence and remands for proper consideration of the disparity arguments.
- Dissenting view is noted but not controlling for the majority’s disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court failed to address a 3553(a)(6) disparity argument. | Begin argues district court did not consider a federal-federal disparity. | The Government contends the disparity claim lacks meritorious basis; court considered factors. | Procedural error; vacate and remand for proper consideration. |
| Whether state-federal disparity argument has colorable merit under 3553(a)(6). | Begin argues state statute penalties should inform federal sentence. | Disparities between federal and state penalties are not §3553(a)(6) concerns. | State disparity not controlling; court need not address; however крас colorable merit exists for federal-federal disparity. |
| Whether the court’s failure to address the federal-federal disparity argument requires reversal. | Colorable merit requires consideration and ruling on the disparity argument. | Court should not fill gaps; record should reflect consideration; but not mandatory to remand. | Vacate and remand for explicit consideration of §3553(a)(6) arguments. |
| Whether Ausburn-type record need was satisfied for §3553(a)(6) consideration. | district court did not adequately discuss the disparity arguments. | Court’s statements showed some factors were considered. | Cannot review; remand for proper ruling. |
| Whether the District Court adequately explained its §3553(a) balancing. | Argument requested explicit ruling on disparity reduction. | Court’s brief acknowledgment suffices. | Insufficient; remand for meaningful consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ausburn, 502 F.3d 313 (3d Cir.2007) (disparity under § 3553(a)(6) must be discussed when colorable merit shown)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir.2009) (procedural review of sentencing decisions; stage-based review)
- United States v. Merced, 603 F.3d 203 (3d Cir.2010) (record must show meaningful consideration of § 3553(a) factors)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (required consideration of sentencing factors, not mere token statements)
- United States v. Jackson, 467 F.3d 834 (3d Cir.2006) (rotely citing § 3553(a) factors is insufficient)
- United States v. Cooper, 437 F.3d 324 (3d Cir.2006) (courts must address colorable arguments; cannot import reasoning for others)
- United States v. Branson, 463 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir.2006) (§ 3553(a)(6) concerns only federal defendants and uniformity within federal system)
- United States v. Docampo, 573 F.3d 1091 (11th Cir.2009) (§ 3553(a)(6) colorable disparity argument considerations)