United States v. Charles Edward Bracken

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED) [4399073] [15-1808]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-1808
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Charles Edward Bracken
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
____________
Submitted: February 29, 2016
Filed: May 16, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________

PER CURIAM.
Charles Edward Bracken pled guilty to distribution of child pornography in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). He appeals the district court’s1 below1

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.

Appellate Case: 15-1808

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Entry ID: 4399073

guidelines-range sentence. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1291, this court
affirms.
Bracken distributed over 21,000 images and 570 videos depicting sexual abuse
of children—including children being raped and in bondage. He faced a guideline
range of 210 to 240 months’ imprisonment, and a mandatory minimum 5-year
imprisonment. At sentencing, he requested the minium sentence. The government
recommended a downward variance to 151 to 181 months’ imprisonment. The
district court sentenced him to 120 months’ imprisonment. Bracken asserts that the
district court gave insufficient weight to his lack of criminal history, severe physical
and sexual abuse as a child, deteriorating physical health, the collateral consequences
of his conviction (such as social stigma), and low risk of re-offending—all of which
were fully briefed in the district court. Bracken argues his 120-month sentence is
“greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of federal sentencing.”
This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Harlan, 815 F.3d 1100, 1107 (8th Cir. 2016). A court
abuses its discretion if it “fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received
significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or
considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in
weighing those factors.” United States v. Ceballos-Santa Cruz, 756 F.3d 635, 637
(8th Cir. 2014).
The district court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors. The district court
stated that it would consider the advisory guideline range and the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities. The court found that a 120-month sentence was
“sufficient but not greater than necessary,” “reflects the seriousness of the offense,”
is an “adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” and “protect[s] the public from
further crimes of the Defendant.” The court acknowledged “sentences out there” both
higher and lower than 120 months, but concluded this sentence “fulfills 3553.” The
-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1808

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Entry ID: 4399073

district court did not commit a clear error of judgment in sentencing the defendant to
a term of imprisonment 90 months below the guidelines range. See United States v.
Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (“[I]t will be the unusual case
when we reverse a district court sentence—whether within, above, or below the
applicable Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
The judgment is affirmed.
______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-1808

Page: 3

Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Entry ID: 4399073