United States v. Pattee
820 F.3d 496
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2012 law enforcement seized seven hard drives and a desktop from Bradley Pattee’s residence, recovering >7,000 child‑pornography images and videos and photos documenting sexual abuse of a neighboring child victim who later confirmed prolonged abuse.
- Pattee was indicted on one count of producing child pornography (18 U.S.C. §2251(a)), four counts of distributing (§2252A(a)(2)(A)), and eight counts of possessing (§2252A(a)(5)(B)); he pled guilty to all counts.
- At the plea colloquy the district court omitted several specific advisals required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1) (e.g., persistence in a not‑guilty plea, jury trial, explicit advisal of right to appointed counsel at every stage, certain trial rights).
- Pattee admitted photographing the child, storing images on digital media, and that the desktop and external hard drives were produced outside New York; he did not expressly admit that cameras/equipment used to record had traveled in interstate commerce.
- District court denied Pattee’s suppression motion before plea; at sentencing the court focused on harm to the victim and aggravating facts (encryption, volume of material) and imposed an effective 47‑year sentence.
- On appeal Pattee argued (1) his plea was invalid for Rule 11 defects and insufficient factual basis for the interstate‑commerce element of the production charge, and (2) his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. The Second Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of guilty plea under Rule 11 (failure to advise specific rights) | Omissions of several Rule 11 advisals rendered plea invalid; would have gone to trial or preserved issues on appeal | Plea was knowing/voluntary; omissions were harmless given full record and strong evidence | No plain error; omissions did not affect substantial rights and plea stands |
| Sufficiency of factual basis for §2251(a) commerce element | Hard drives alone insufficient because Pattee did not admit cameras/equipment used to record traveled in interstate commerce | Admission that images were stored on digital media and that drives/desktop were produced outside NY supports commerce nexus; production includes embodiment on digital media | Adequate factual basis; production can encompass storage/media produced out of state, so commerce element met |
| Effect of defendant's mental health (suicide attempt) on voluntariness | Mental health incident impaired ability to enter knowing, voluntary plea | Court inquired about mental state, medication, and the jail incident; defendant answered he understood and was able to proceed | Court’s inquiry was adequate; plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness of 47‑year sentence | Guidelines overstate child‑pornography conduct; court failed to account for guideline flaws (Dorvee) | Sentence driven by production (sexual abuse and photographing) and distribution/possession facts; court considered §3553(a) factors and aggravating conduct | Sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable; within permissible range given offense gravity |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (establishing plain‑error review for unobjected Rule 11 errors)
- United States v. Holston, 343 F.3d 83 (2d Cir.) (upholding interstate‑commerce nexus where recording medium was manufactured out of state)
- United States v. Foley, 740 F.3d 1079 (7th Cir.) (production can include later embodiment on out‑of‑state media)
- United States v. Poulin, 631 F.3d 17 (1st Cir.) (Congress intended broad definition of "produced")
- United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (plain‑error prejudice standard for plea defects)
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.) (caution on application of child‑pornography Guidelines)
- United States v. Maher, 108 F.3d 1513 (2d Cir.) (Rule 11's role in ensuring voluntary plea)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (reasonableness standard for sentencing review)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.) (procedural/substantive sentencing review standards)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 725 F.3d 271 (2d Cir.) (strict adherence to Rule 11 requirement)