USA v. Kevin Todd

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication.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.

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NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION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-