698 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2012), 12-2260, United States v. Quinn
|Citation:||698 F.3d 651|
|Opinion Judge:||EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge.|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nicolai D. QUINN, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Timothy M. O'Shea (argued), Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Jerome F. Buting (argued), Attorney, Buting Williams & Stilling, Brookfield, WI, for Defendant-Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and POSNER and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||October 18, 2012|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Argued Oct. 2, 2012.
Nicolai Quinn pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and was sentenced to 97 months' imprisonment. His plea agreement contains a promise not to appeal the conviction and length of imprisonment. But Quinn did not promise to refrain from appealing his sentence of supervised release. He contends that the district judge erred by sentencing him to supervision for life.
Both the Criminal Code and the Sentencing Guidelines authorize lifetime supervised release for violations of § 2552. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k); U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b)(2). Moreover, the Sentencing Commission recommends " the statutory maximum term of supervised release" for
every sex offense. See § 5D1.2(b) hanging paragraph. Yet although Quinn's sentence is within the Guidelines range and entitled to a presumption of substantive reasonableness, see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007); United States v. Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606 (7th Cir.2005), a judge still must consider a defendant's serious arguments for a sentence below the Sentencing Commission's recommendations. See, e.g., United States v. Villegas-Miranda, 579 F.3d 798 (7th Cir.2009); United States v. Tahzib, 513 F.3d 692, 695 (7th Cir.2008).
Quinn asked the judge to choose a ten-year term of supervised release. He submitted a forensic psychologist's evaluation, which concluded that he has a lower-than-normal risk of recidivism. He also submitted the testimony that two psychologists (Michael Seto and Richard Wollert) recently had presented to the Sentencing Commission regarding the recidivism rate for persons convicted of child-pornography offenses. The judge discussed the forensic psychologist's evaluation briefly when explaining why he chose a sentence of 97 months, but he did not discuss Seto's or Wollert's...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP