USA v. Brian Dunn

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Brian Keith Dunn. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 14-15441

Date Filed: 07/31/2015

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15441
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cr-60090-WJZ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
BRIAN KEITH DUNN,
Defendant - Appellant.

________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 31, 2015)
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 14-15441

Date Filed: 07/31/2015

Page: 2 of 2

Brian Keith Dunn appeals his sentence of 150 months’ imprisonment,
imposed after pleading guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) by using interstate
commerce to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexual
activity. Dunn argues the district court erred because the prison sentence of 150
months is substantively unreasonable. After review, 1 we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the 150-month
sentence. The district court considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). In doing so, the district court observed the seriousness of taking the
minor victim to a remote location and pressuring him into engaging in sexual
activity. Although the Government requested the district court to impose a term of
144 months’ imprisonment, the district court was not constrained by the
Government’s request. United States v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 628, 630 (11th Cir.
1998) (“That the sentencing court is not bound by the parties’ agreements or
recommendations is well settled.”). Dunn has not met his burden of establishing
his sentence was “unreasonable in light of the record and the § 3553(a) factors.”
See United States v. Tome, 611 F.3d 1371, 1378 (11th Cir. 2010). We accordingly
affirm.
AFFIRMED.

1

We review the substantive unreasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1191 (11th Cir. 2008).
2