United States v. Lawrence Lynde
926 F.3d 275
6th Cir.
2019
Check Treatment
Docket

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LAWRENCE MICHAEL LYNDE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-3725

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

June 7, 2019

19a0121p.06

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b). Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron. No. 5:17-cr-00429-1—Dan A. Polster, District Judge.

Before: COOK, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

COUNSEL

ON BRIEF: Manuel B. Russ, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Danielle K. Angeli, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY‘S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

OPINION

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. Section 2G2.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines increases the recommended sentence in child-pornography cases if the offense involves a minor under the age of 12, the use of a computer, or other aggravating factors. This Guideline has repeatedly been subject to the critiсism that its enhancements apply in most child-pornography cases and generate unduly harsh sentences. Our court has just as repeatedly rebuffed claims that courts must decline to follow § 2G2.2 because it arose from too much democratic tinkering by Congress and not enough empirical research by the Sentencing Commission. . Lawrence Lynde, who pleaded guilty to a child-pornography offense, asks us to depart from our cases and reject § 2G2.2 because the Commission added its expert voice to the criticism in a 2012 report to Congress. But just as this report cannot compel the legislative branch to depart from its policy choices about § 2G2.2‘s content, cf. , so too it cannot compel the judicial branch to depart from its legal judgment about § 2G2.2‘s validity. We thus affirm Lynde‘s sentence.

Before detailing our reasoning, we start with the facts. In October 2015, federаl officials received a tip from Canadian authorities that Lynde had been trading child pornography online. An investigation uncovered that he had exchanged 62 images with another individual on the online application “Kik” between October and December 2014. Executing a sеarch warrant at Lynde‘s home in December 2015, federal agents recovered 322 images and five videos of child pornography. The images showed, among other things, prepubescent minors, including toddlers, engaged in genital-to-genital intercourse with adult males. Lynde ultimately pleaded guilty to receiving and distributing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).

The knowing receipt and distribution of child pornography carries a statutory minimum of five years’ imprisonment and a statutory maximum of twenty years. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1). The Sentencing Guidelines assigned Lynde‘s crime a base offense level of 22. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(a)(2) (2016). His presentence report applied five § 2G2.2 enhancements: (1) Lynde‘s offense involved children under 12, id. § 2G2.2(b)(2); (2) Lynde knowingly distributed child pornography, id. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F); (3) the child pornography presented sadistic or masochistic conduct and the sexual abuse of a toddler, id. § 2G2.2(b)(4); (4) Lynde had used a computer, id. § 2G2.2(b)(6); and (5) Lynde possessed over 600 images, id. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D). (Under the Guidelines commentary, every video is “considered to have 75 images.” Id. § 2G2.2, cmt. n.6(B)(ii).) After reductions for acceрtance of responsibility, Lynde‘s total offense level ‍​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‍was 34. With no criminal history, he faced a Guidelines range between 151 and 188 months.

At sentencing, Lynde‘s counsel objected to the § 2G2.2 enhancements. Counsel conceded that they applied. But he described § 2G2.2 as “broken” because it produced harsh sentences through enhаncements that enlarge the punishment in most cases. Counsel also highlighted Lynde‘s otherwise productive life and strong family support. A married father of three who provided care to his sick wife, Lynde served in the military and then began a career servicing x-ray equipment, which ocсasionally took him overseas on charitable work. Lynde‘s counsel thus requested the statutory minimum—a five-year sentence.

The district court agreed that the presentence report correctly calculated the Guidelines range, but decided that a Guidelines sentenсe would be “longer than necessary” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). It rejected the use-of-a-computer enhancement because the court had never presided over a child-pornography case that did not involve a computer. It also decreased the offense levеl because of Lynde‘s family circumstances. All in all, its reductions reduced the Guidelines range to between 97 and 121 months. Because of Lynde‘s “particularly exemplary life,” the court settled on a 97-month sentence.

We review this sentence “under a deferential abuse-of-discrеtion standard.” . While a sentence must be both procedurally and substantively reasonable, id. at 51–52, Lynde does not identify any procedural problems with his sentence. He simply disputes the bottom-line number, arguing that his 97-month sentence is “too long.” . Lynde presents wholesale and retail chаllenges in support of this substantive argument: He broadly asserts that the district court should have rejected the § 2G2.2 enhancements on policy grounds that would apply to most defendants, and he narrowly asserts that the district court wrongly balanced the § 3553(a) factors in his case.

Wholesale Challenge. We typically start with an appellate presumption of reasonableness if the district court imposes a sentence within the Guidelines range (or a sentence below that range where, as here, the defendant is the one appealing). . This “presumption reflects the fact that, by the time an apрeals court is considering a within-Guidelines sentence on review, both the sentencing judge and the Sentencing Commission will have reached the same conclusion as to the proper sentence in the particular case.” . And when a judge departs downward from the Guidelines range, “simple logic compels the conclusion” that a “defendant‘s task of persuading us that the more lenient sentence . . . is unreasonably long is even more demanding.” . Flipping this logic on its head, Lynde argues that we should treat as unreasonable even a below-Guidelines sentence that relies on § 2G2.2‘s enhancеments. That is so, Lynde claims, because those enhancements neither (1) arise from the Commission‘s careful study into the courts’ past sentencing practices nor (2) adequately distinguish among child-pornography offenders.

We have not taken kindly to Lynde‘s claim that § 2G2.2 deserves to be cast aside because of its “purported lack of empirical grounding.” . His premise is correct. Congress has actively policed § 2G2.2, so the Commission‘s usual statistical methods have taken a backseat to Congress‘s ‍​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‍“desire to cast a wider criminal net[] and impose harsher punishments.” . But Lynde‘s conclusion does not follow. To the contrary, Congress‘s direct involvement is a “virtue, rather than [a] vice,” in a republic like ours because “[t]he Constitution is fundamentally a democratic document, not a technocratic one.” . If the representatives who are accountable to the People reach “a retributive judgment that certain crimes аre reprehensible and warrant serious punishment as a result,” the Commission cannot stand in their way. Id. at 764.

We have also rejected Lynde‘s claim that § 2G2.2‘s enhancements must be disregarded because they apply in most cases and do not adequately distinguish among offenders. See . If “the harm [an enhancement] addresses is real,” wе have reasoned, “the enhancement is valid, no matter how often it applies.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Here, Lynde does not dispute that real harms undergird two of the enhancements that he attacks—those for pornography involving children under 12, and for pornography that includes sadistic or masochistic conduct or the abuse of toddlers. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(2), (b)(4). (The phrase “res ipsa loquitur” comes to mind.) Rather, Lynde makes only the legally insufficient point that these enhancements arise frequently. See ; . With respect to the enhancement fоr offenses involving “600 or more images,” U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D), Lynde does additionally argue that the commentary arbitrarily treats video clips as “75 images,” U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, cmt. n.6(B)(ii). But one could reasonably decide “that videos and movies” cause more harm and so “should be weighed much more heavily than photos or pictures.” . (As a disclaimer, we note that Lynde does not dispute that this § 2G2.2 enhancement factually applies, so we do not address whether the commentary‘s bright-line rule correctly interprets § 2G2.2(b)(7). Cf. .)

To be sure, the Guidelines have been advisory since . Thus, a district court may disagree with § 2G2.2‘s enhancements “for policy reasons, and may reject the Guidelines range based on that disagreement.” . But a district court faces a “formidable task” when it seeks to reject the policies underlying a Guideline, like § 2G2.2, that “comes bristling with Congress‘s own empirical and value judgments.” . If that is true, a district court cannot be said to have ‍​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‍abused its discretion merely because it followed § 2G2.2 (and agreed with its policies). . As we have said, “the mere fact that a sentencing court has the discretion to disagree with the guidelines on policy grounds does not mean that it is required to do so“—and that is true no matter how persuasive an appellate court finds the defendant‘s policy arguments. (citation omitted).

Even so, Lynde replies, the district court acted arbitrarily in this case by charting a middle course: It declined to impose § 2G2.2‘s use-of-a-computer enhancement on the ground that the enhancement applies in most cases, but refused to extend the same logic to the other enhancements. Yet the broad discretion granted to district courts in sentencing means that they need not follow Lynde‘s “‘in for a penny, in for a pound’ approach.” See . And a district court could reasonably conclude that the use of a computer does not warrant extra punishment while also deciding that, for example, trading in images of toddler rape does. See (per curiam).

Our existing precedent would fully rebut Lynde‘s attack on § 2G2.2 but for a new turn that he takes. Lynde says that the Sentencing Commission itself “offered significant criticism of [§ 2G2.2‘s] enhancements” in a December 2012 report to Congress recommеnding changes. See U.S. Sentencing Comm‘n, Federal Child Pornography Offenses 322–25 (Dec. 2012). Does this report require us to reassess our cases upholding § 2G2.2‘s general validity? No. That‘s analogous to suggesting that Congress can compel the Supreme Court to depart from its authoritative interpretation of the law—not by amending thе law through Article I‘s bicameralism and presentment process—but by issuing a congressional report critical of the decision. Cf. ; . Since Congress cannot supersede judicial interpretations in this way, it should go without saying that the Commission—which has been described as “a sort of junior-varsity Cоngress,” (Scalia, J., dissenting)—cannot either. See also . And while the Commission may follow the prescribed process for amending the Guideline (or convince Congress to do so for subsections out of its control), see 28 U.S.C. § 994(p), Lynde concedes that neither Congress nor the Commission has amended § 2G2.2 in response to this report.

We are not alone in taking this view. Other cirсuits have held that the Commission‘s “report does not render the non-production child pornography guidelines in § 2G2.2 invalid or illegitimate.” ; ; ; cf. . While “Congress and the Commission are responsible for altering the Guidelines,” they have not done so. . The report thus “does not change the statutory sentencing scheme, the applicable sentencing guidelines, or the binding precedent about § 2G2.2 in this Circuit.” . That said, a district court may consider the report‘s ‍​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‍policy concerns when deciding whether to follow § 2G2.2‘s enhancements. Id. If, however, the court opts to adhere to § 2G2.2, the normal standards of appellate review apply. Id.

In sum, notwithstanding the Commission‘s report, a sentence does not become unreasonable “because U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 [is] involved.” . Instead, a sentence following this Guideline receives the same appellate presumption of reasonableness that applies to a sentence following any other Guideline. See .

Retail Challenge. Apart from his arguments against § 2G2.2, Lynde asserts that the district court arbitrarily applied the § 3553(a) factors to his case. Recall, however, that Lynde‘s 97-month sentence fell well below the Guidelines range of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. “Although it is not impossible to succeed on a substantive-reasonableness challenge to a below-guidelines sentence, defendants who seek to do so bear a heavy burden.” . Lynde has not met that burden here.

Indeed, the district court thoroughly weighed § 3553(a)‘s sentencing factors, factors that it called “[t]he touchstone of sentencing.” It recognized the nature and severity of Lynde‘s offense, which causes “incalculable” and “devastаting” harm to child victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A). It acknowledged the need to deter this conduct and protect children, recognizing that the sentence must “affect and attack the demand side” of child pornography. Id. § 3553(a)(2)(B)–(C). It identified the Guidelines range, see id. § 3553(a)(4), and the criticisms (like those that Lynde now presses) about the way that this range has beеn set. The court likewise considered Lynde‘s personal characteristics. Id. § 3553(a)(1). It agreed that he had “led a particularly exemplary life” until this offense, and also reduced the sentence because of his wife‘s illness. These factors led it to settle on the lowest end of аn adjusted Guidelines range. That sentence, the court concluded, accomplished the various purposes of sentencing. Id. § 3553(a)(2).

Against all this, Lynde can only nitpick the district court‘s reasoning. He says, for example, that the district court did not expressly address his “educational or vоcational” needs. Id. § 3553(a)(2)(D). But that factor has little relevance to Lynde, an already skilled technician. The district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to make an “explicit[] reference” to it. .

While conceding that the district court relied on various mitigating factors to reducе his sentence, Lynde also asserts that it did not reduce the sentence enough. Lynde may feel that the district court‘s already lenient sentence was not lenient enough, but its decision properly (not arbitrarily) balanced the relevant factors. In that respect, Lynde noticеably omits mentioning one factor—the one requiring the district court to consider “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). The greater the departure from the Guidelines range, the more this factor rises to the fore. See . And here, the district court‘s sentence was already more than one-third shorter than the low end of the Guidelines range. The district court thus made a “reasoned and reasonable decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on the whole, justified the sentence.” .

* * *

Anyone who has reviewed the sentencing materials in this case—both the materials detailing the severe and lasting harm that ‍​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‍child pornography causes its victims and those showing the effects of this conviction on Lynde and his family—would recognize that the district court faced a difficult decision. Our task as appellate judges is not to pick the sentence that we would prefer (whether higher or lower), but only to ensure that the sentence chosen by the district court fell within its broad range of reasoned discretion. On that, we are confident in the answer.

We affirm.

Read the detailed case summary