In United States v. Hall, No. 18-14145 (July 21,
2020) (Ed Carnes, Rosenbaum, Vinson (ND Fla)), the Court affirmed the
defendant’s 40-year sentence for receiving child pornography, an upward
variance from a guideline range of 15 years.
First, the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the
sentencing court improperly relied on unreliable hearsay evidence from an
earlier sexual abuse case. The Court
concluded that the defendant did “not even come close” to meeting his burden to
prove that the evidence was unreliable.
Second, the defendant argued that the district court failed
to give notice required by Rule 32(h) before imposing an upward departure. The Court rejected that argument because the
district court expressly imposed an upward variance (not a departure), for
which no notice is required. And the reasons
for the sentence above the guideline range were based on the 3553(a) factors,
not a departure provision in the Guidelines.
It did not matter that those reasons might have also fit under a departure
provision.
Third, the Court concluded that the sentence was not
substantively unreasonable. The Court
emphasized that the defendant had engaged in repeated acts of sexual abuse of
children over two decades, even after he went to prison for it and was released;
he blamed the victims rather than showed remorse; and he inflicted substantial
and long-lasting harm to the victims.
