United States v. Shane Viren
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12404
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendant Shane A. Viren pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual exploitation of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2251) and one count of possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252A).
- He initially entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement limiting total incarceration to 360 months; the district court warned it could reject the agreement.
- After the presentence report (PSR) was prepared, the district court rejected the 360-month cap and informed Viren; he withdrew his plea and later entered an open guilty plea.
- The PSR set offense level 43 and (erroneously under the court’s later analysis) increased criminal history from II to V under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 based on a 2002 adult rape conviction, yielding a Guidelines range of life.
- At sentencing the court considered the § 3553(a) factors and imposed concurrent statutory-maximum terms (600 months on each exploitation count; 240 months on possession).
- Viren appealed, arguing (1) the district court abused discretion by not explaining rejection of the plea agreement, and (2) the criminal history category increase to V was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by rejecting the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea cap without explaining why | Gov’t: the court properly exercised discretion to accept or reject plea; record shows the court notified parties and complied with Rule 11 requirements | Viren: court gave no justification for rejecting the 360‑month cap and should have explained reasons | Court: No abuse of discretion — court expressly rejected the 360‑month cap and had warned Viren earlier it might do so; that explanation was sufficient and further commentary was prohibited |
| Whether the district court plainly erred in applying U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 to raise criminal history from II to V | Gov’t: § 4B1.5 applied because current offenses are covered sex crimes and defendant had a prior sex conviction | Viren: the 2002 rape was of an adult and therefore not a qualifying prior "sex offense conviction" under § 4B1.5 commentary | Court: Error was plain because the prior conviction was against an adult and therefore did not trigger § 4B1.5, but the error was harmless because offense level 43 produced a Guidelines range of life whether CHC II or V |
| Whether Viren’s substantial rights were affected by CHC miscalculation | Gov’t: miscalculation did not affect range or outcome | Viren: increase to V prejudiced sentencing | Court: No substantial-rights violation — Guidelines range unchanged (life) thus no resentencing required |
| Whether the district court should have guided what sentence would be acceptable to avoid plea withdrawal | Gov’t: not required and such guidance is forbidden | Viren: court should have given guidance | Court: Argument waived and, in any event, district courts may not opine on acceptable plea terms during Rule 11 negotiations |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (no absolute right to have guilty plea accepted)
- United States v. Martin, 287 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2002) (district court may reject plea that undermines Guidelines or fails to account for relevant conduct)
- United States v. Kraus, 137 F.3d 447 (7th Cir. 1998) (district court must explain why plea agreement is objectionable but may not participate in plea negotiations)
- United States v. Zuniga-Lazaro, 388 F.3d 308 (7th Cir. 2004) (plain-error standard for unobjected sentencing issues)
- United States v. Shearer, 379 F.3d 453 (7th Cir. 2004) (clarifying plain-error analysis)
- United States v. Blackman, 199 F.3d 413 (7th Cir. 1999) (issue-preservation requirements on appeal)
- Lockhart v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 958 (2016) (Supreme Court rejecting a related statutory argument raised by defendant)