United States v. Walter Roberts
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6139
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- An adult man reported that Walter Richard Roberts sexually abused him between 1986 and 1992, when the victim was 9 to 14 years old, and the investigation showed abuse of many other boys.
- One molestation on a fishing trip crossed the Arkansas–Texas border; the offense fell within the then-applicable federal statute of limitations.
- Roberts pled guilty to one count of transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a).
- The district court varied upward and sentenced Roberts to the statutory maximum of 120 months in prison.
- Roberts appealed, challenging the sentence on ex post facto and sentencing-discretion grounds.
- At sentencing, the court used the 1992 Guidelines to determine a 63–78 month advisory range, then imposed a 120-month sentence after considering current Guidelines and § 3553 factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex post facto before sentencing | Roberts argues retroactive guideline amendments created a substantial risk of greater punishment. | The district court anticipated Peugh and used the older range for the offense while considering current guidelines for the final sentence. | No ex post facto violation; sentencing complied with Peugh's framework. |
| Abuse of discretion in sentencing | District court failed to explain a substantively reasonable sentence and gave undue weight to current-punishment increase. | The court provided a lengthy, reasoned explanation and properly weighed 3553(a) factors; no abuse of discretion. | Sentence affirmed; no abuse of discretion; explanation adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (U.S. 2000) (ex post facto standard: risk of increased punishment)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (Sup. Ct. 2013) (retroactive Guidelines increase creates risk of higher sentence; newer Guidelines may justify departure)
- United States v. Hill, 552 F.3d 686 (8th Cir. 2009) (adequate explanation satisfies 3553(a) considerations)
- United States v. Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 2013) (waiver principle for sentencing objections)
- United States v. Lozoya, 623 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2010) (deferential review of substantive reasonableness within 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Borromeo, 657 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2011) (wide latitude in weighing 3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc standard for substantive reasonableness review)