|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEROME R. ANGWIN, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.
No. 05-00025—Lesley Brooks Wells, District Judge.
Argued: January 15, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 25, 2009
Before: MERRITT, ROGERS, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Defendant Angwin was arrested as part of an FBI internet sting to catch pedophiles. Angwin communicated with an undercover agent, who posed as a mother of two daughters whom she offered up for sex with Angwin. One of the fictional daughters was 7 years old. Angwin traveled from Delaware to Ohio to meet and engage in sexual activity with all three fictional females. Angwin was indicted and pled guilty to three counts of illegal sexual conduct. In determining Angwin’s sentence, the district court applied a 4-level sentencing enhancement because one of Angwin’s victims was under the age of 12. Angwin appeals the application of that enhancement arguing that because the undercover agent never posed as the 7-year-old daughter, there was no victim under 12. Because the enhancement can apply when an officer creates a fictional minor victim, even though the officer did not pretend to be that victim, the district court properly applied the enhancement.
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROY STEPHEN RECLA, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Marquette.
No. 06-00029—Robert Holmes Bell, District Judge.
Submitted: January 21, 2009
Decided and Filed: March 25, 2009
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant, Roy Stephen Recla, appeals the sentence of the district court imposed following his plea of guilty to one count of intentionally and unlawfully conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C). Recla contends that, in imposing sentence, the district court improperly considered the possibility that his sentence would be reduced by a future Rule 35(b) motion. Recla also argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider his argument that the court should reduce his sentence to account for the time he spent in state custody. Finally, Recla asserts that his sentence is “too severe” and, thus, substantively unreasonable because his sentence would have been lower had the district court properly evaluated his arguments. For the reasons set forth below, we VACATE Recla’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing.