United States v. Peters
| Docket Number | 22 C 50389 |
| Decision Date | 20 July 2023 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ADRIAN PETERS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
In December 2019, Adrian Peters pled guilty to three counts of production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C § 2251(a). In December 2020, the Court sentenced him to a twenty-six-year prison term and a life term of supervised release. On appeal, Peters challenged the lifetime term of supervision but not his term of imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed the lifetime-supervision sentence. United States v. Peters, No. 21-1003, 2021 WL 4755159 (7th Cir. 2021). In November 2022, Peters filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate set aside, or correct his sentence. The Court denies his motion for the reasons stated below.
In 2015, Peters was charged with twelve counts of production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a). Peters who was twenty to twenty-two years old at the time of his offenses, communicated with multiple minors and persuaded at least seven of them to "engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of recording them." Peters, 2022 WL 4755159, at *1. Those individuals ranged from fourteen to seventeen years old, and Peters knew they were underage at the time he sought to record them engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Id. After he was charged and prior to trial, Peters fled the jurisdiction and attempted to seek refugee status in Canada, but he was deported, arrested in New York, and eventually returned to this jurisdiction.
In December 2019, Peters pled guilty to three counts of production of child pornography. In his signed plea agreement, Peters admitted to knowingly using, persuading, inducing, and enticing three victims to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purposes of having those victims transmit that content to him using the Internet. He also stipulated to having committed the same offense against four other underage victims for purposes of computing his sentence.
In the presentence report, a probation officer calculated a Sentencing Guidelines range of ninety years' imprisonment based on a statutory maximum of thirty years for each violation of section 2251(a). Peters was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years. The probation officer recommended a life term of supervised release and "proposed an extensive set of supervised-release conditions, including substance-abuse and sex-offender treatment, computer and internet monitoring, and restrictions on travel." Id.
In addition, the probation officer detailed Peters's background and upbringing in her report. She noted that Peters's parents had divorced when he was two years old and that Peters's stepfather had been physically abusive. The probation officer also mentioned that beginning when Peters was six or eight years old, his father encouraged and directed him to engage in sexual activity with adult women. As relevant to this motion, the presentence report referenced a letter by Dr. Steve Eisenberg, a licensed clinical professional counselor, stating that Peters had met with him for counseling. The presentence report did not include the letter, but it stated that the letter described Peters's mood and symptoms of anxiety and depression.
Paragraphs 25 to 43 of the presentence report described Peters's conduct relating to the offenses, while paragraphs 44 to 47 described other relevant conduct. In paragraphs 25 to 43, the probation officer stated that two minor victims alleged that Peters sexually assaulted them. The officer also noted that there was no evidence suggesting Peters distributed any of the child pornography that he produced. Paragraphs 44 to 47 referenced police reports stating that while he was between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one, Peters attempted to coerce a fifteen-year-old girl to engage in sexual activity and later sexually assaulted two adult women.
The government submitted a sentencing memorandum seeking a sentence of between 360 and 420 months' imprisonment and a life term of supervised release.
Peters's counsel submitted a sentencing memorandum seeking imposition of the fifteen years mandatory minimum prison term, followed by five years of supervised release. Counsel did not provide the letter from Dr. Eisenberg mentioned in the presentence report, but she included a report from licensed clinical psychologist Dr. Rachel Loftin, who diagnosed Peters with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Dr. Loftin pointed out that "most people with ASD will never be arrested for a sexual crime and, in fact, are much more likely to be victims than perpetrators[,]" and the "most striking" difference between Peters and other individuals with ASD was "his unusually sexualized childhood." Brief Report of Psychological Consultation ("Loftin Report"), United States v. Peters, No. 15 CR 50026, at 8 (dkt. no. 96). Dr. Loftin also concluded that (1) Peters experienced anxiety, (2) the physical abuse and sexualization Peters experienced at the hands of his father and stepfather "left him quite vulnerable to grossly inappropriate social behavior," and (3) Peters "has a skewed perception of social norms surrounding sexuality." Id. at 9-10. Nevertheless, Dr. Loftin believed that Peters "has all of the prognosticators of a good response to therapy and is expected to do well with social skills training in adulthood[]" and "with appropriate instruction and treatment, he is capable of learning and developing positive alternatives." Id. at 9-10.
At sentencing, defense counsel objected to the allegations regarding sexual assault in paragraphs 44 to 47 of the presentence report. After hearing from both sides on the issue, the Court stated that it was "not comfortable" relying on those allegations without more support, so it declined to consider the allegations in imposing sentence. Transcript of Proceedings, Dec. 17, 2020 ("Sentencing Tr."), 6:21-22. The Court then heard from both sides on the appropriate sentence. Defense counsel stated that Peters was in counseling with Dr. Eisenberg and reported that Dr. Eisenberg believed that Peters is "ready, willing, and able to work on his issues and to reenter society as someone who is no longer a threat to society." Id. 39:1-3.
In determining a sentence, the Court considered the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), taking note of the "extraordinarily serious" nature of Peters's offenses, his autism disorder, and the physical and sexual abuse he experienced as a child. It also recognized that Peters's case differed from, for example, "a case of a 50-year-old having sexual contact with an 8-year-old or an 11-year-old" because "[f]or the most part, most of these incidents involved somebody who was around 20 having sexual contact with somebody who was around 16 or 17." Id. 51:1-6. On the other hand, the Court stated that "whatever condition that Mr. Peters has or had that led him to engage in this behavior isn't going to go away . . . you can't snap your fingers and make it go away" and "[t]here is no kind of treatment he is going to get in prison that is going to make it go away." The Court imposed a life term of supervised release for these reasons. Id. 53:13-20. In addition, in explaining its decision to require mental health treatment, the Court stated that "therapy or at least [the Court's] understanding is that therapy for people on the autism spectrum is not easy" and "[i]t is a lot more complicated and difficult and long term than that." Id. 53:23-54:4.
On the question of imprisonment, the Court rejected imposing the mandatory minimum sentence because it believed "the conduct is way too severe for that." The Court also stated, however, that it believed life sentences "are reserved for murder cases, and maybe some other extremely serious cases[.]" Id. 55:13-16. The Court sentenced Peters to twenty-six years' imprisonment, representing a sixty-four-year downward variance from the Guidelines range.[1]
On appeal, Peters challenged the Court's imposition of a life term of supervised release, but he did not challenge the length of his prison term. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the supervised release term, rejecting Peters's arguments that the Court "in fact equated a life term of supervised release with a 'default' punishment for a sex offense, and thus procedurally erred by failing to assess his personal history and characteristics." Peters, 2021 WL 4755159, at *2.
In November 2022, Peters timely filed his section 2255 motion.
When reviewing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the Court must hold an evidentiary hearing if the movant alleges facts that, if proven to be true, would entitle him to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b); Sandoval v. United States 574 F.3d 847, 850 (7th Cir. 2009). A hearing is not required, however, "if the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b).
A defendant generally may not raise in a section 2255 motion a claim that was available on direct appeal but that he did not assert. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621-22 (1998). This rule does not apply to ineffective assistance of counsel claims, which "may be brought in a collateral proceeding under § 2255, whether or not the petitioner could have raised the claim on direct appeal." Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504 (2003).
Because he did not raise his claims on direct appeal, Peters has procedurally defaulted on all of them, with the exception of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. He therefore cannot pursue those defaulted claims unless he demonstrates cause and prejudice. Bousley, 523 U.S. at 622....
To continue reading
Request your trial