United States v. Ronald William Brown
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22230
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Ronald William Brown pleaded guilty to eight counts of possession and receipt of child pornography after ICE investigation uncovered chat logs, images, journals, and other evidence showing an extended sexual obsession with young boys and explicit discussions of murdering and cannibalizing children.
- Forensic review found more than 200 pornographic images of children, hundreds of images of child bondage and dead children, and over 100 images of a deceased boy from Brown’s church; agents also seized journals dating to 1978, books about cannibalism/serial killers, and a child-dressed sex doll.
- Brown admitted the factual allegations in the PSI; the probation officer calculated a Guidelines range of 78–97 months (total-offense level 28, CH I) but noted an upward variance might be warranted given Brown’s obsessive and escalating conduct.
- The government moved for an upward variance and submitted chat excerpts, marked photos, Brown’s web profile expressing necrophilic interests, and other exhibits showing depravity and possible danger to children.
- The district judge granted an upward variance, citing Brown’s long-standing obsession, seriousness of the crimes, limited deterrence effect, and danger to the public, and sentenced Brown to 240 months imprisonment and lifetime supervised release.
- On appeal Brown argued the 240-month sentence was substantively unreasonable and rested on an unfounded assumption he would commit future violent acts; the government defended the variance based on the record. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed but remanded to correct scrivener errors in the judgment’s statutory citations for Counts 4–8.
Issues
| Issue | Brown's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a 240-month upward variance | Variance was substantively unreasonable; judge impermissibly assumed Brown would harm children and over-weighted public protection | Variance justified by Brown’s long history of obsession, explicit chats advocating murder/cannibalism, supporting physical evidence, and need to deter/protect | Affirmed — court found no abuse of discretion; judge considered §3553(a) factors, explained reasons, and permissibly afforded greater weight to public protection and seriousness of offenses |
| Whether the judgment contains scrivener errors in statutory citations for Counts 4–8 | (Not disputed by Brown on appeal) | Judgment misidentified the statute; should cite 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and (b)(1) consistent with the indictment | Remanded for correction of typographical errors in the judgment (statutory citations corrected) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (explains procedural and substantive reasonableness review for sentencing)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion standards for sentencing)
- United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823 (11th Cir.) (deference to district court’s weighting of §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Wayerski, 624 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir.) (upholding sentence where record supports future-danger concerns)
- United States v. Yuknavich, 419 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir.) (possession of child pornography is not victimless and supports sentencing considerations)
- United States v. Turner, 626 F.3d 566 (11th Cir.) (receipt/possession create market for victimization; relevant to sentencing)
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.) (warning that unsupported assumptions about future sexual violence can render a variance unreasonable)
- United States v. Wimbush, 103 F.3d 968 (11th Cir.) (remand appropriate to correct clerical errors in judgments)