USA v. Brent Terry
Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judge; John M. Rogers, Circuit Judge and Bernice Bouie Donald, Circuit Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 17a0309n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Jun 06, 2017
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
BEFORE: GIBBONS, ROGERS, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Brent Terry appeals the 60-month sentence imposed by the district court
upon the revocation of his supervised release. As set forth below, we affirm.
In 2006, Terry entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of images of minors
engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B). The district court
sentenced Terry to 70 months of imprisonment followed by seven years of supervised release.
Terry appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, which this court affirmed. United States v.
Terry, 522 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2008).
Terry’s supervised release began in September 2012.
On April 28, 2016, law
enforcement stopped Terry’s vehicle and found an iPhone in his possession. Upon questioning,
Terry admitted that the iPhone belonged to him and that he used the iPhone to access the Internet
and a mobile messaging application called Kik. Terry further admitted that, while using Kik, he
No. 16-3831, United States v. Terry
was invited to join a chatroom named “infants and babies,” where he viewed nude images of
children as young as five and six years old. The probation office subsequently petitioned the
district court for a summons, asserting that Terry had violated the conditions of his supervised
(1) operating a personal computer without his probation officer’s permission;
(2) accessing the Internet; (3) accessing chatrooms; and (4) possessing child pornography.
Terry admitted these four violations at the revocation hearing. After the parties agreed
that Terry’s violations constituted Grade C violations, the district court stated that the statutory
maximum sentence was 24 months of imprisonment and that the guidelines recommended three
to nine months of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); USSG § 7B1.4(a). When asked
about an appropriate disposition, defense counsel asserted that 18 U.S.C. § 3583 required the
district court to impose a 60-month sentence. Section 3583(k) provides in relevant part:
If a defendant required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act commits any criminal offense under chapter 109A, 110, or 117,
or section 1201 or 1591, for which imprisonment for a term longer than 1 year can
be imposed, the court shall revoke the term of supervised release and require the
defendant to serve a term of imprisonment under subsection (e)(3) without regard
to the exception contained therein. Such term shall be not less than 5 years.
18 U.S.C. § 3583(k). The government agreed that the district court was required to impose a
term of imprisonment of not less than five years because Terry’s offense conduct would
constitute a crime under chapter 110—access with intent to view child pornography. The district
court found Terry guilty of the violations, revoked his supervised release, and sentenced him to
60 months of imprisonment followed by lifetime supervised release. There were no objections to
In this timely appeal, Terry contends that his Grade C violations by definition involved
conduct constituting an “offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of one year or less,” see
USSG § 7B1.1(a)(3), and therefore did not fall within the scope of § 3583(k), which applies to
No. 16-3831, United States v. Terry
offenses “for which imprisonment for a term longer than 1 year can be imposed,” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(k). As the government points out, Terry waived this argument by taking the position at
the revocation hearing that § 3583(k)’s five-year mandatory minimum applied. Terry “cannot
agree in open court with a judge’s proposed course of conduct and then charge the court with
error in following that course.” United States v. Aparco-Centeno, 280 F.3d 1084, 1088 (6th Cir.
2002) (quoting United States v. Sloman, 909 F.2d 176, 182 (6th Cir. 1990)).
Even if Terry did not waive this argument, plain-error review applies because he failed to
raise an objection to his sentence when the district court afforded him the opportunity to do so.
See United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 385 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Terry “must show
(1) error (2) that was obvious or clear, (3) that affected [his] substantial rights and (4) that
affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” United States v.
Wallace, 597 F.3d 794, 802 (6th Cir. 2010). Although the supervised release violation report and
the parties characterized his violations as Grade C violations, the conduct admitted by Terry
established a Grade B violation—conduct constituting a federal “offense punishable by a term of
imprisonment exceeding one year.”
USSG § 7B1.1(a)(2).
Terry admittedly possessed or
accessed child pornography, which constituted a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and
(b)(2), a chapter 110 offense, subjecting him as a second offender to a ten-year mandatory
minimum. Terry has not shown plain error in the district court’s imposition of the five-year
mandatory minimum under § 3583(k).
For these reasons, we AFFIRM Terry’s 60-month sentence.
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?