United States v. Snyder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5361
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Snyder was convicted on four child pornography-related counts and sentenced to 168 months in prison, a six-year term of supervised release, and a $15,000 fine.
- He began supervised release on April 16, 2009 and had conditions modified to bar internet use, porn, and require sex-offender treatment.
- Snyder violated treatment and computer-use conditions and accessed sites with pornographic content, though the sites indicated participants were over eighteen.
- Probation filed a Special Report recommending revocation for three violations: treatment failure, internet use, and viewing pornography.
- At the revocation hearing, the district court imposed eight years without addressing the Guidelines advisory range or §3553(a) factors.
- On appeal, Snyder argues the district court failed to consider the advisory range and to address potential unwarranted disparities under §3553(a)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by not considering the Guidelines range | Snyder | Snyder | Remanded for resentence; district court erred by not considering Guidelines range and §3553(a) factors. |
| Whether the court abused discretion by imposing above-Guidelines terms without proper justification | Snyder | Goverment | Remanded; need to start with Guidelines and consider disparity concerns under §3553(a)(6). |
| Whether the error was harmless or preserved | Gibbs; preservation | Gibbs; not harmless, must remand | Not harmless; remand required for proper sentencing procedure. |
| Whether substantive reasonableness should be considered on remand | Snyder | Goverment | Not addressed due to procedural error; remand to consider proper factors. |
| Whether the sentence complies with 3583(e)(3) given the single term of supervision | Goverment | Snyder | Question left for remand to determine impact of original 6-year supervised release term. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Neal, 512 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 2008) (Guideline-based benchmark; require consideration of advisory range)
- United States v. Gibbs, 578 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2009) (Procedural review; error not harmless when guidelines were ignored)
- United States v. Carter, 408 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2005) (§3553(a) factors must be considered in revocation)
- United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2009) (Avoidance of unwarranted disparities; deviations require explanation)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Outside-Guidelines sentence requires justification and proportionate explanation)
- United States v. Kirkpatrick, 589 F.3d 414 (7th Cir. 2009) (Departure from Guidelines risks unwarranted disparities; must be carefully justified)
- United States v. Eskridge, 445 F.3d 930 (7th Cir. 2006) (Concerning interpretation of terms of supervised release)