United States v. Goodin

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER GOODIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-3554

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

May 28, 2020

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0305n.06

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: BOGGS, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Christopher Goodin appeals his sentence for sexual exploitation of children and related child pornography offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252, and 2252A. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). Goodin was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison and was also ordered to pay approximately $150,000 in restitution to his victims and a $5,000 special assessment. Goodin raised no objections on these points in the district court.

On appeal, Goodin argues that the length of his prison sentence is substantively unreasonable. He also claims that the amount of restitution was erroneous, that restitution must be imposed by a jury instead of a judge, and that his indigency precludes imposition of the $5,000 special assessment. For the following reasons, we affirm Goodin's sentence.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Goodin's Criminal Activity

In August 2018, the FBI's office in Salt Lake City received a complaint regarding a twelve-year-old female ("Victim 1") who sent pornographic images of herself to an adult male using the mobile messaging application Kik. Victim 1 met someone with the username "Shorty853" on a different application called Live.me, and Shorty853 asked Victim 1 to download Kik instead. She did so, registering with the username "Fungirl12901."

As a result of their interactions, Victim 1 believed that Shorty853 was also a minor female. Once Victim 1 was on Kik, Shorty853 sent her sexually explicit images of an underage girl, whom Victim 1 believed to be the user behind Shorty853. Victim 1 then sent Shorty853 images of herself in return.

At some point, Shorty853 told Victim 1 that another Kik user—SamBam01—was harassing Shorty853 and had threatened to tell Shorty853's cousin that she was on Kik. Victim 1 contacted SamBam01 and told him to leave Shorty853 alone. In response, SamBam01 told Victim 1 to send him sexually explicit photographs, which would buy his silence. She complied. Later, SamBam01 again contacted Victim 1 and threatened to expose both her and Shorty853 unless she sent him more explicit images. Again, Victim 1 acquiesced to his demands.

As it turns out, both Shorty853 and SamBam01 were the same person: Christopher Goodin. Investigators were able to trace the Shorty853 username to an account on a dating website called "Plenty of Fish." Goodin was the owner of that account and had instructed people on Plenty of Fish to contact him through Kik using his Shorty853 account as well.

After identifying Goodin, the FBI executed a search warrant at his home and recovered two mobile phones and two laptops. In addition to the two Kik accounts and images of Victim 1, those devices also contained thousands of other photographs and videos of child pornography. These images are described in detail in the presentence investigation report ("PSR") and included infants and toddlers, bestiality, bondage, urination, and defecation. Many of these images depicted victims of child pornography known to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.The FBI's search of Goodin's devices also identified a second minor female victim, a fourteen-year-old living in Ohio ("Victim 2").

B. District Court Proceedings

On October 10, 2018, Goodin was arrested and taken into federal custody. Later that month, a grand jury returned a three-count indictment for sexual exploitation of children, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. Goodin then pleaded guilty to all three counts without a plea agreement.

Goodin's PSR noted that the offense level was 43, the maximum possible allowed by the guidelines. Thus, even though his criminal history category was I (the lowest), the guidelines sentence was life in prison. But because the statutes under which he was convicted had lower statutory maximums, the guidelines range was lowered to 840 months (seventy years). The statutory minimum was fifteen years' imprisonment.

Several statutory provisions added financial components to Goodin's sentence. For example, under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act ("JVTA"), 18 U.S.C. § 3014, the PSR recommended a special assessment of $5,000 per count. The PSR also noted that Goodin was required to pay mandatory restitution. Several individuals depicted in Goodin's child-pornography collection submitted restitution requests that included estimates of losses and requested specific amounts from Goodin.¹ One of the requests only included general statements about the victim's medical expenses and out-of-pocket costs based on her insurance coverage, and no specific dollar-amount request; the PSR recommended $5,000 in restitution for this victim. The PSR listed these amounts and recommended total restitution of $150,136.40.²

At sentencing, Goodin said that he reviewed the PSR paragraph by paragraph with his attorney and had no objections. The government asked for a sentence of thirty years, despite the guidelines recommendation of seventy years. In support of this recommendation, the government noted that Goodin's method of extorting pornographic images from his victims was especially cruel, that his child-pornography collection was extensive and particularly depraved, and that he lied to investigators when they first executed the search warrant. Goodin's counsel in turn argued that the statutory minimum of fifteen years was an appropriate sentence, basing this argument on Goodin's acceptance of responsibility, his desire for counseling, and Goodin's own abuse as a child.

After hearing the parties' arguments, the district court walked through the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and how they applied to Goodin's case. After considering these factors, the court sentenced Goodin to twenty-five years in prison. Goodin was also placed on supervised release for the rest of his life.

As part of its sentence, the court ordered restitution in the full amounts recommended by the PSR. And finally, the court imposed a single $5,000 special assessment under the JVTA.

Goodin then appealed his sentence, and now raises four grounds for vacating his sentence. First, Goodin says that his twenty-five-year sentence was unreasonably long given his history and characteristics. Second, he says the district court erred in its restitution order by not making specific findings as to which portion of his victims' losses he was responsible for. Third, Goodin argues that the Constitution requires that only a jury award restitution, despite this Court's contrary precedent. And fourth, Goodin argues that the district court should not have imposed the JVTA special assessment because he is indigent and unable to pay.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Substantive Reasonableness

Goodin first argues that his twenty-five-year prison sentence was substantively unreasonable. He thus asks this Court to vacate his sentence and remand with instructions to impose a shorter prison term. But Goodin's sentence was below the guidelines range for his crimes, which creates a strong presumption of reasonableness. Because Goodin has failed to rebut this presumption, the district court's sentence must be affirmed.

When a defendant raises a substantive-reasonableness challenge, she is essentially saying that the district court ordered too lengthy a sentence in light of the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See, e.g., United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 264 (2018); United States v. Robinson, 778 F.3d 515, 518-19 (6th Cir. 2015). That statute requires courts, after considering "the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant," to "impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to achieve the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Those goals include just punishment for the offense, deterrence of other criminal conduct, protection of the public from the defendant, and the potential for rehabilitation. Id. § 3553(a)(2).

The district court's balancing of these factors and its ultimate sentencing decision are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Robinson, 778 F.3d at 518; United States v. Lanning, 633 F.3d 469, 473 (6th Cir. 2011). Under this standard, we look to whether the sentencing court "placed too much weight on some of the § 3553(a) factors and too little on others," granting the trial court significant deference in its decision. Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 442; accord, e.g., United States v. Boucher, 937 F.3d 702, 707-08 (6th Cir. 2019); United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043, 1047 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 44 (2019).

"The substantive reasonableness inquiry 'take[s] into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.'" United States v. Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334, 345 (6th Cir. 2012) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 581 (6th Cir. 2007)). Because the sentencing guidelines are intended to already reflect an appropriate balancing of these factors, this Court will presume that a district court's within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389-90 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007) ("If the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the appellate court may, but is not required to, apply a presumption of reasonableness."). And when a defendant receives a below-guidelines sentence, her "task of persuading us that the more lenient sentence . . . is unreasonably long is even more demanding." United States v. Curry, 536 F.3d 571, 753 (6th Cir. 2008) (order).

At sentencing, the district court, after first...