936 F.3d 876
9th Cir.2019Background
- Hanson previously pleaded guilty in 2007 to possession of child pornography, served prison time, and was released to supervised release.
- In 2016 probation officers seized Hanson’s devices and FBI forensics identified thousands of child‑pornography images; a 2017 jury convicted Hanson of receipt of child pornography.
- At a combined proceeding the district court revoked Hanson’s supervised release and sentenced him to 5 years under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), to run consecutively to a 15‑year sentence for the 2017 conviction (20 years total).
- Hanson appealed both the conviction (challenging admission of his 2007 conviction evidence) and the supervised‑release sentence (challenging application of § 3583(k) on ex post facto grounds).
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction (admission of prior conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 414/404(b) was within the district court’s discretion) but held the § 3583(k) sentence violated the Ex Post Facto Clause and constituted plain error.
- Because the district court fashioned a single “sentencing package” in one proceeding, the court vacated both the revocation and criminal sentences and remanded for complete resentencing, limiting the supervised‑release reimprisonment to a maximum of two years under the pre‑2006 law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior 2007 conviction under Fed. R. Evid. 414/404(b) | Hanson: prior conviction was unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded | Government: prior conviction is highly similar, probative of intent/knowledge, and admissible with limiting instruction | Admission affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion (Rule 414 applied; Rule 403 balancing satisfied) |
| Application of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) on revocation (Ex Post Facto) | Hanson: applying § 3583(k) (5‑year minimum) retroactively violates Ex Post Facto Clause | Government: court relied on § 3583(k) as enacted and recommended by probation; conceded error on appeal | Held for Hanson: applying § 3583(k) was retroactive and violated Ex Post Facto; plain error requiring vacatur of sentence |
| Prejudice / plain‑error effect on overall sentence | Hanson: error affected substantial rights; remand at least on supervision sentence | Government: court would have imposed same 20 years (or 18 years on criminal count) absent § 3583(k) error | Court found a reasonable probability of a different result; plain‑error prongs satisfied; relief warranted |
| Remedy — whether to resentence only revocation or both counts (sentencing package) | Hanson: the two matters are distinct; only revocation sentence is invalid and should be resentenced | Government: because court imposed an aggregate package, remand should allow full resentencing on both matters | Court vacated both sentences and remanded for resentencing under the sentencing‑package doctrine; supervised‑release reimprisonment cannot exceed two years under pre‑2006 law |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Paskow, 11 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 1993) (ex post facto analysis for revocation statutes)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (retroactive statutory changes that increase penalty on revocation implicate Ex Post Facto Clause)
- United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 414 limits and Rule 403 balancing for prior child‑molestation evidence)
- United States v. Martinez‑Rodriguez, 472 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain‑error relief where miscalculation creates reasonable likelihood of different outcome)
- Christensen v. United States, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2015) (sentencing‑package doctrine permitting vacatur and full resentencing to reconfigure aggregate punishment)