United States v. Zuk
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21218
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Zuk collected and distributed a large child‑pornography library (13,844 photos, 472 videos), including sadistic images and family photos; he directed a 16‑year‑old to sexually abuse a 5‑year‑old and requested specific sadistic images.
- Indicted on seven counts (transporting, receiving, possessing). Pleaded guilty to one count of possession under a plea agreement that dismissed six counts and contained a defendant appeal waiver while expressly preserving the government’s appellate rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b).
- Sentencing Guidelines (via a cross‑reference) produced an advisory range that was capped at the statutory maximum of 240 months for the possession count; Guidelines calculation (offense level 41) would have supported 324–405 months but was capped at 240 months.
- At sentencing multiple experts diagnosed Zuk with pedophilic disorder, sexual sadism, and a mild autism spectrum disorder; district court concluded autism spectrum disorder (Asperger’s) was the “primary driver,” varied downward 24 levels, and imposed time served (26 months) plus lifetime supervised release and treatment conditions.
- The government appealed arguing the 26‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable — an excessive variance that underweighted punishment, deterrence, and produced unwarranted disparities; the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Zuk) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government’s appeal was barred by an implied reciprocal waiver (Guevara issue) | Guevara requires reciprocal appellate waivers; government should be implicitly barred if defendant waived appeal | Plea expressly preserved government’s § 3742(b) rights; appeal allowed | Court: plea expressly preserved government appeal rights; Guevara inapplicable; appeal not barred |
| Whether the 26‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable given the large Guidelines recommendation (240 months) | Sentence is far below Guidelines and fails § 3553(a) goals (punishment, deterrence, protection, avoiding disparity); court over‑relied on rehabilitation/autism | Sentence individualized: autism reduced culpability; treatment in community is more effective and protects Zuk given vulnerability | Court: variance (~214 months, ~90%) was not justified; abuse of discretion; vacated and remanded |
| Proper weight of defendant’s autism spectrum disorder at sentencing | Autism only marginally related to offense; experts did not say it caused the crimes; BOP can provide treatment; autism does not negate need for punishment/deterrence | Autism and related social deficits substantially contributed to offending and affect treatment needs; vulnerability in prison supports community treatment alternative | Court: autism is relevant but not shown to cause offense nor to justify near‑complete downward variance; cannot be the primary driver to the exclusion of other § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether the district court sufficiently considered unwarranted disparities under § 3553(a)(6) | The 26‑month sentence creates large disparities with similarly situated defendants (median/average sentences much higher) | The court’s additional conditions (Alpha House program + community confinement) produce custody/monitoring totaling several years and individualized treatment, mitigating disparity concerns | Court: record shows substantial disparity (comparators far longer sentences); district court insufficiently addressed disparity; supports vacatur |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Guevara, 941 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir. 1991) (reciprocal waiver principle discussed)
- United States v. Bowe, 257 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 2001) (interpreting Guevara’s mutuality requirement)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (courts must ensure sentences are reasonable and explain deviations from Guidelines)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing variances from Guidelines; procedural and substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340 (4th Cir. 2010) (extent of deviation requires sufficiently compelling justification)
- United States v. Hecht, 470 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2006) (Congress’s view that child pornography offenses are serious and merit severe sanctions)