United States of America v. John J. McCarthy
No. 24-1989
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
April 14, 2025
Submitted: March 17, 2025
Filed: April 14, 2025
[Unpublished]
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
John J. McCarthy was convicted of attempted enticement of a minor for prostitution in violation of
McCarthy believes the imposition of lifetime supervision was substantively unreasonable. This court reviews for abuse of discretion. United States v. Rollins, 105 F.4th 1115, 1116 (8th Cir. 2024). “A district court abuses its discretion and imposes an unreasonable sentence when it fails to consider a relevant and significant factor, gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or considers the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” Id.
McCarthy asserts lifetime supervision is unreasonable because it was “based on first time violations of conditions he immediately admitted and promptly corrected.” But the district court properly considered the
Here, the court gave greater weight to McCarthy‘s original offense (enticement of a 12-year-old for sex) and the fact that his supervised release violations were a danger to the public. On an unapproved electronic device, using five email addresses and six messaging applications, he searched violence and child exploitation, including pedo memes, gore memes, ephebophile, incest bathtub memes, mom and daughter sex, perverse family, r@pebait, rape, incest, extreme
I also think that the nature of the conduct suggests not only that the defendant requires a wake-up call in terms of the importance of complying with his conditions, but also it suggests that he‘s disposed to make decisions that are, unfortunately, reminiscent of his original offense in the absence of careful supervision.
. . . .
I think the history and characteristics of this defendant are also salient in that he—obviously I‘m taking into effect his history of committing the crime that he originally committed, and then also I have considered that he—obviously there are things in his background that make his behavior more explicable than it might otherwise be, but that doesn‘t affect the risk it poses to society. And so I don‘t think that justifies a lesser term of supervision certainly, and I don‘t think it lessens the gravity of the offense here.
The court did not err in imposing lifetime supervision. See United States v. Phillips, 785 F.3d 282, 284 (8th Cir. 2015) (upholding imposition of lifetime supervision based on defendant‘s danger to the community).
The judgment is affirmed.
*******