USA v. Kevin Todd


Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Ronald Lee Gilman, Circuit Judge; Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judge and Jane Branstetter Stranch, Circuit Judge.

Download PDF
Case: 13-3974 Document: 27-2 Filed: 04/16/2014 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 14a0285n.06 No. 13-3974 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Apr 16, 2014 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEVIN D. TODD, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO BEFORE: GILMAN, GIBBONS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Kevin D. Todd appeals his sentence. Pursuant to a binding plea agreement, Todd pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The district court determined that, based on a total offense level of 39 and a criminal history category of II, Todd’s guidelines range of imprisonment was 292 to 360 months. Under the terms of the plea agreement, Todd was to receive a prison sentence of 240 to 300 months. The district court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Todd to 300 months in prison, to be followed by a life term of supervised release. On appeal, Todd argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to adequately explain its reason for imposing a life term of supervised release. We review Todd’s challenge for plain error because defense counsel failed to object to the sentence when given the opportunity to do so by the district court at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Case: 13-3974 Document: 27-2 Filed: 04/16/2014 Page: 2 No. 13-3974 United States v. Todd To establish plain error, Todd must show that an obvious or clear error affected his substantial rights as well as the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. See id. The district court did not plainly err in imposing Todd’s sentence. The court adequately explained that the life term of supervised release was warranted based on the heinous nature of Todd’s actions and the need to protect the public. Given that the arguments raised during sentencing were straightforward and conceptually simple and the life term of supervised release was the recommended term under the guidelines, see USSG § 5D1.2(b)(2), the district court was not required to further explain its sentencing decision. See United States v. Duane, 533 F.3d 441, 451-52 (6th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we affirm Todd’s sentence. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?