United States v. Taylor Mills
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21866
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mills (responding as “Alan Pepsi”) communicated online with an undercover officer he believed was a mother with children aged 11 and 14, sent explicit photos and descriptions, and agreed to meet to have sex with the children; he was arrested at the hotel with condoms and paraphernalia.
- He pleaded guilty to coercion/enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).
- Probation calculated his Guidelines range using U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(a) (repeat and dangerous sex offender) based on a 2013 Texas deferred adjudication for online solicitation and indecency with a child.
- The § 4B1.5 enhancement raised his criminal history to level V and produced an advisory range of 262–327 months; the district court sentenced him to 300 months plus life supervised release.
- Mills appealed, arguing (1) his Texas deferred adjudication is not a prior “conviction” for § 4B1.5(a), and (2) his 300-month sentence is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Mills' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Texas deferred adjudication counts as a prior “conviction” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(a) | Deferred adjudication is not a conviction; ambiguous term should be read for lenity in Mills' favor | A deferred adjudication following a guilty plea and a court finding that evidence substantiates guilt is a conviction for § 4B1.5 and exclusion would undermine enhancement purpose | Deferred adjudication qualifies as a prior conviction for § 4B1.5(a); enhancement proper |
| Whether a 300-month sentence for coercion/enticement of a minor is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment | 300 months is grossly disproportionate to the offense | Sentence is within statutory range, within Guidelines, reflects offense gravity and recidivism; not grossly disproportionate | Sentence is not grossly disproportionate; Eighth Amendment claim rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (federal law treats state plea-plus-probation as a conviction for enhancement purposes)
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (term "conviction" must be read in context; susceptibility to multiple meanings does not automatically create ambiguity)
- United States v. Cisneros, 112 F.3d 1272 (5th Cir.) (Texas deferred adjudication counts as a prior conviction for federal sentencing enhancement)
- Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (Eighth Amendment benchmark: severe recidivist sentence upheld as not grossly disproportionate)