United States v. Richard William Melanson
663 F. App'x 491
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Richard William Melanson pleaded guilty to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual contact with minors, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b).
- Facts at sentencing: Melanson made three trips to Guatemala (2007–2010) and engaged in sexual contact with three underage boys; one victim was repeatedly whipped with a belt and photographed; a video showed severe beating and subsequent sexual acts.
- Melanson acknowledged in testimony and his factual basis that his travels were for illicit sexual activity with minors.
- The district court calculated an offense level of 43 and criminal history category II, yielding a guidelines range of life; statutory maximum under § 2423(b) capped the sentence at 360 months (30 years), which the court imposed.
- At sentencing, victims testified to lasting harms; defense sought a 10-year sentence based on Melanson’s age and purported low recidivism risk and argued disparity with another pornography case.
- The district court rejected disparity and mitigation arguments, recommended placement in a facility offering sex-offender treatment, and ordered the federal sentence to run concurrent with the undischarged state sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Melanson) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 360-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Sentence is excessive given Melanson’s age, unrelated prior record, and low recidivism risk | Sentence reflects seriousness of conduct, need for protection, and § 3553(a) factors | Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable |
| Whether district court relied on improper outrage or emotion | Court sentenced based on personal outrage rather than principled analysis | Court performed careful § 3553(a) analysis; moral outrage alone not dispositive | Affirmed — court’s statements reflected lawful condemnation but also systematic analysis |
| Whether court improperly considered rehabilitation/treatment in setting sentence | Court impermissibly lengthened sentence to promote rehabilitation | Court merely recommended placement in BOP treatment programs, which is permitted | Affirmed — recommending treatment is allowed (Tapia) and did not lengthen sentence |
| Whether sentencing disparity argument required a lower sentence | Cited disparity with a 25-year sentence in a pornography case as justification for leniency | Cases are distinguishable; facts and victim harm differ significantly | Affirmed — district court reasonably rejected the disparity claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (review standard for reasonableness of sentence)
- United States v. San-Miguel, 634 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion framework for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Jones, 509 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2007) (factors showing abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (court may urge BOP to place offender in prison treatment program)
- United States v. Rickert, 685 F.3d 760 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court recommendation to BOP about placement in treatment program permissible)