United States v. William Schock
862 F.3d 563
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- William Schock pleaded guilty to one count (Count 3) of sexual exploitation of a minor (photographing Victim 2 on or about Sept. 5, 2013) in the Western District of Michigan and was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment.
- The indictment originally charged four production counts (Counts 1–4) spanning 2011–2014 and a possession count (Count 5); the plea limited conviction to a single September 2013 production of Victim 2.
- The PSR identified two victims (Victim 2: images in Oct 2011, June 2013, Sept 2013, Apr 2015; Victim 1: images in Aug 2014) and recommended a multiple-victim enhancement (§ 2G2.1(d)(1)) based on both children, yielding a Guidelines range of 360 months–life (offense level 42, CH I).
- Schock objected that Victim 1’s exploitation (Aug 2014) was not relevant conduct to Count 3 (Sept 2013) under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1); the district court overruled the objection, applied the enhancement, but imposed a below-Guidelines 240-month sentence.
- At sentencing the district court also announced that Schock must pay a monthly stipend equal to the BOP’s cost of incarceration (approx. $2,552/month), to be paid by someone in his family; the written judgment, however, labeled incarceration costs a recommendation and indicated a fine was waived for inability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2G2.1(d)(1) multiple-victim enhancement applies when uncharged victim’s exploitation postdates the offense of conviction | Schock: Victim 1’s August 2014 exploitation is not relevant conduct to Count 3 (Sept 2013) under § 1B1.3(a)(1), so § 2G2.1(d)(1) shouldn’t apply | Government: Similarity and temporal proximity are sufficient to treat additional minors as relevant conduct and apply the multiple-victim enhancement | Court: Reversed — § 1B1.3(a)(2) does not apply; under § 1B1.3(a)(1) the government failed to prove Victim 1’s conduct occurred “during the commission” of Count 3, so the enhancement was improperly applied; vacated and remanded for resentencing |
| Whether the district court’s announcement that Schock must pay BOP incarceration costs created a valid fine that exceeds statutory/Eighth Amendment limits | Schock: The announced monthly incarceration-cost obligation (~$2,552/month, $612,420 total) was a fine exceeding the $250,000 statutory maximum and possibly Eighth Amendment excessive | Government: (Position not finally resolved on appeal); district court framed costs as part of sentencing and the written judgment is ambiguous | Court: Ambiguity as to the amount and nature of incarceration-cost assessment requires clarification at resentencing; because sentence vacated on other grounds, the court did not decide statutory or constitutional questions now |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brown, 579 F.3d 672 (6th Cir. 2009) (upheld multiple-victim enhancement where evidence showed contemporaneous photos and overlap between victims)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standards for review of reasonableness of sentences)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (erroneous Guidelines range can affect substantial rights; harmlessness requires district court relied on factors independent of Guidelines)
- United States v. Penson, 526 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 2008) (oral sentence controls over written judgment; defendant present for oral pronouncement)
- United States v. Ukomadu, 236 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2001) (looked to written judgment to determine monetary obligations where oral sentence was ambiguous)