United States v. Randall Muhlenbruch
682 F.3d 1096
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Muhlenbruch is on his second appeal in a federal child pornography case.
- On remand from Muhlenbruch I, the district court vacated the lesser-included possession conviction and resentenced Muhlenbruch on the receipt conviction.
- The district court determined the Guidelines range, applied a downward departure for overstated criminal history, and then imposed a 120-month sentence with five years of supervised release.
- Muhlenbruch challenged (1) the choice of conviction vacated, (2) the 120-month sentence’s procedural and substantive reasonableness, and (3) several supervised-release conditions.
- The court held that vacating the possession count was within the district court’s discretion and affirmed the sentence and most conditions.
- There is also a concurrence criticizing the computer/internet restrictions and suggesting remand for a more narrowly tailored condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vacatur of lesser-included possession count | Muhlenbruch contends vacating possession was error | The district court had discretion and acted with record support | No abuse of discretion; possession count could be vacated |
| Procedural and substantive reasonableness of 120-month sentence | District court applied improper Pepper variance standard; plain-error review | Court carefully weighed §3553(a) factors and imposed a permissible variance | Sentence procedurally sound and substantively reasonable |
| Conditions of supervised release adequate and related to offense | Some conditions overly broad or unnecessary | Conditions reasonably related and appropriately tailored | Conditions affirmed (with noted disagreement on computer/internet restriction by separate concurrence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fischer v. United States, 205 F.3d 967 (7th Cir.2000) (abuse-of-discretion review of resentencing decisions)
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (Supreme Court 2011) (post-sentencing rehabilitation can support a variance in appropriate cases)
- Lozoya v. United States, 623 F.3d 624 (8th Cir.2010) (extraordinary circumstances not required for outside-Guidelines sentences)
- Wiedower v. United States, 634 F.3d 490 (8th Cir.2011) (upheld sex-offender treatment and polygraph conditions given offender’s history)
- Mickelson v. United States, 433 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir.2006) (upheld contact restrictions with minors despite no history of abuse)
- Thompson v. United States, 653 F.3d 688 (8th Cir.2011) (affirmed contact restrictions on minors based on offense context)