United States v. Milton Borders
489 F. App'x 858
6th Cir.2012Background
- Borders appeals an 18-year sentence after pleading guilty to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B).
- PSR: Borders ordered and received catalogs and two DVDs; material identified as child pornography; agents recovered the DVDs and other items.
- Borders admitted ordering pornography by mail, viewing online material, and expressed attraction to young girls under 12.
- PSR calculated offense level 24, criminal history IV; advisory guidelines 77–96 months, statutory minimum 10–20 years; guidelines max below min, so guideline sentence would be 10 years under § 5G1.1(b).
- District court varied upward due to high risk of recidivism and danger to the community, imposing 18 years’ imprisonment plus lifetime supervision.
- Borders argues the sentence is substantively unreasonable and challenges three supervised-release conditions as abusive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 18-year sentence is substantively reasonable under § 3553(a). | Borders contends ten years suffices; upward variance from 8 to 10 years is excessive. | District court properly considered factors showing risk of recidivism and need to protect the public. | Sentence not an abuse of discretion; substantively reasonable under § 3553(a). |
| Whether three supervised-release conditions are within the court’s discretion and properly tailored. | Borders challenges one condition as overbroad (not to view anything sexually suggestive); others challenge as too expansive or unsupported. | Some conditions upheld; disputed one broadened scope raises plain error; third condition not plain error given circuit splits. | Vacates the overbroad condition prohibiting viewing or possessing anything sexually explicit or suggestive; other conditions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review in sentencing; advisory Guidelines under Booker)
- United States v. Tristan-Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2010) (defining substantive reasonableness under 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard; factors weighting)
- United States v. Studabaker, 578 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2009) (reasonableness review framework)
- United States v. Ely, 468 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2006) (Booker: range advisory; consider § 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Nixon, 664 F.3d 624 (6th Cir. 2011) (no reversal for different reasonable sentence; upholds district court’s discretion)
- United States v. Klups, 514 F.3d 532 (6th Cir. 2008) (preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for sentencing facts)
- United States v. Mendez, 498 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2008) (sentencing facts supported by preponderance standard)
- United States v. Cole, 359 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2004) (review of factual findings in sentencing)
- Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (First Amendment considerations for broad restrictions)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (constitutional limits on physical privacy; relevance to liberty interests)
- United States v. Brigham, 569 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2009) (internet-use restrictions in supervised release)
- United States v. Lantz, 443 F. App’x 135 (6th Cir. 2011) (plain-error analysis for overbroad conditions)
- United States v. Love, 593 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (internet ban tied to rehabilitation and public safety)