United States v. Stephen Graham-Wright, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9215

Graham-Wright sexually exploited a six-year-old and confessed; police found explicit images and videos.
A government-paid competency/cognitive-function examination under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 was ordered; results were filed with the court and provided to both sides.
The psychiatrist diagnosed pedophilia; Graham-Wright pled guilty to a single count under § 2251(a)-(e).
The pre-sentence report included the pedophilia diagnosis and fantasies about children; guidelines range was 360 months to life.
District court imposed 360-month sentence within the guidelines, denying a downward variance.
Graham-Wright challenged the use of the psychiatric report at sentencing as a Fifth Amendment violation; the court denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of exam data at sentencing	Graham-Wright argues Fifth Amendment violation from compelled exam data.	Court may consider reliable information at sentencing; Miranda/Estelle limits do not apply.	No reversible Fifth Amendment violation; information was voluntary and reliable.
Estelle v. Smith applicability to non-capital sentencing	Estelle bars use of exam results to prove aggravating factors or guilt at sentencing.	Estelle limits do not extend to non-capital sentencing or voluntary exam.	Estelle not controlling; non-capital context permitted reliance on exam results.
Effect of voluntary vs involuntary examination	Examination could be voluntary; however, Fifth Amendment protections apply to voluntary examinations when used at sentencing.	Examination was voluntary and properly disclosed; no coercion or improper use.	Examination voluntary; not coerced; admissible at sentencing.
Harmless error analysis	Any constitutional error should lead to remand for resentencing unless harmless.	Error, if any, was harmless because within-guidelines sentence would have been same.	Any error was harmless; within-guidelines sentence preserved.
Substantive reasonableness and variance	District court erred by denying downward variance based on psychiatric data.	Within-guidelines sentence with factors supporting no variance.	No abuse of discretion; sentence presumptively reasonable within guidelines.

Roberts v. United States, 445 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1980) (sentencing evidence can be reliable even if inadmissible at trial)
Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 (U.S. 1949) (rules of evidence do not apply at sentencing)
United States v. Silverman, 976 F.2d 1502 (6th Cir.1992) (evidence at sentencing may come from otherwise inadmissible sources)
United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (U.S. 1972) (broad sentencing inquiry scope and sources of information)
Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (certain psychiatric testimony implicated by Fifth Amendment in capital cases)
Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1987) (limited rebuttal use of defendant-initiated psychiatric reports allowed)
Kennedy v. United States, 499 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2007) (addressing foreseeability of dangerousness and admissibility considerations)
United States v. Cortes, 922 F.2d 123 (2d Cir.1990) (pre-sentence interviews and Miranda warnings interplay)
Estelle v. Smith (relevant supplemental, 451 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1981) (core holding on voluntary vs involuntary exam and use at sentencing)
Chitty, 760 F.2d 425 (2d Cir.1985) (estelle-like considerations in non-capital context)
White v. Mitchell, 431 F.3d 517 (6th Cir.2005) (rebuttal purpose and use of psychiatric reports at trial vs sentencing)