20-1124 | Omnilex

Full text

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 20-1124
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY ESPOSITO,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.
Case No. 1:18-CR-00109— Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge.
____________________
A RGUED M AY 12, 2021 — DECIDED J UNE 11, 2021
____________________
Before F LAUM , HAMILTON , and BRENNAN , Circuit Judges.
BRENNAN , Circuit Judge. ě¢ȱ, convicted of mul-
ȱȱȱ¡¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱof pos-
ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ȱ ȱ
prison. He appeals, ȱthat the district ȱ ǰȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ęȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ
ȱȱn each individual count and then added to-
. Because the district court did not err ȱȱ
Espositoǰȱ ȱĜ.

-- 1 of 9 --

2 No. 20-1124
I
¢ȱ ȱ ¡¢ȱ ȱ and abused his
adopted son from Guatemala ȱ¢ǰȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱȱcouple of ¢ȱ
before he turned sixteen. Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ repetitive,
ǰȱand horrific. In addition to anal and oral penetra-
tion, ȱ ȱǰ ȱȱȱȱǰȱ
ǰȱ ǰȱ¢ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ
Esposito documented his abuse in videos and ȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱonȱȱȱȱ . He had also
ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢—hundreds of thou-
ȱȱȱȱ—¢ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱ ȱ.
ȱ ȱȱ ȱŘŖȱȱȱ¡¢ȱ¡Ȭ
ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ
uȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ taken ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ
¢ǯȱEsposito ȱ¢ȱ ȱȱȱ.
Iȱȱȱȱǰȱȱdefendant’s of-
ȱȱ ȱȱȱśŗǰȱ ȱȱȱa maxi-
mum of 43 ȱȱȱ . Esposito had no
ȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Gȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
prison, but none of the crimes ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȭ
victed ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ¡ȱ ȱ ȱ . The
probation department recommended that Esposito be impris-
oned ȱŜŖŖȱ¢ǯȱȱ ȱȱŜŘŖȱ¢ǯȱȱ
defense ȱ420 months, ȱȱ ld finish his
ȱȱ¡¢ȱŘŞȱ¢ǯȱȱȱ ȱȱ
Esposito, ȱ ȱ in his mid-fifties, a chance at release from
prison near the end of his life.

-- 2 of 9 --

No. 20-1124 3
ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ the district court explained
¢ȱȱconcluded that a de factȱȱȱ ȱ
for Esposito. Then the court pronounced Esposito’s sentences,
count ¢ countǰȱȱsix 30-¢ȱȱto be served
consecutive to each other, ȱ ¢ȱ fifteen 20-¢ȱ Ȭ
tences to be served concurrent each other but consecu-
tive to the 30-¢ȱ ǯȱ These sentences totaled 200
¢ȱȱǯ
ȱ ȱ , claim the district court sen-
ȱȱ¢ǯȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȬ
sidered his criminal conduct, ¢, and characteristics as a
, determined an appropriate overall punishment, and
then set the sentences for each count to equal that overall pun-
ishment.
II
A
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ǯȱt the sentenc-
ȱ, the defendant ȱȱȱȱȱmethod the
court used to arrive at his sentences, alȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
clarification of the consecutive-versus-concurrent aspect of
the sentences ȱ ȱȱŘŖŖȱ¢ȱ ȱǯȱ
The defendant contends he has raised a procedural chal-
ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ See United States v. Ballardǰȱ şśŖȱ
F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v. Pennington, 908
F.3d 234, 238 (7th Cir. 2018). He ȱȱȱȱȱȬ
ȱȱȱunder ȱȱȱȱȱśŗǻǼ,
ȱȱ“[e]¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ǯȄ
Tȱȱubmits that the plain error doctrine un-
dȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ śŘǻǼȱ should

-- 3 of 9 --

4 No. 20-1124
appl¢ here. Plain error has three elements: the error (1) has
ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱǰȱ(2) must be
clear or obvious, and (3) must have affected the defendant’s
ȱhts. Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct.
1338, 1343 (2016). ȱȱ ȱȱlain errorǰȱȱȬ
ȱǰȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ
But ¢ȱȱȱ’s position, a ȂȱȬ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱȱ
ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ Id. As this court concluded in
United States v. SpeedǰȱŞŗŗȱǯřȱŞśŚȱǻŝȱǯȱŘŖŗŜǼ, ȱ¢ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ¢ȱȱȱtions—like ȱ
ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȂȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ —ȱ £ȱ ȱ
about ȱ ȱ ȱconfused or had ¢ȱ
ȱȱ¢ǯ Id. at Şśŝ–śŞ; see also United States v. Mzembe, 979
F.3d 1169, 1173 (7th Cir. 2020) ǻȃȱȱȱȱȬ
ȱȱǰȱȃ¢ȱǵȄȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱǰȱ ǰȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¡ǯȄǼǯȱ ǰȱȱȱ’s
i¢ǰȱ ȱȱ¢ȱǰȱ ȱǱȱ
ǰȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱřśśřǻǼȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ Ȧȱ nditions of supervised release
ǽǵǾ
ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱan
¡ȱȱ ȱthe court had calculated the consecutive
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ȱ ǯȱ
ȱȱ¢ǰȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱ forfeiture.

-- 4 of 9 --

No. 20-1124 ś
The defense has the better of thȱ. Esposito
ȱȱdistrict ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱǯȱȱThis
ȱ¢ȱ£ȱȱȱural error. Gall v. United
States, śśŘȱǯǯȱřŞǰȱśŗȱǻŘŖŖŝǼȱǻȃȱȱ¢ȱ¡ȱȱ
ȱȄǼǲȱsee also Pennington, 908 F.3d at 238 (chal-
ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȂȱ¡ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱal error). Esposito claims
the district court ȱ¢ȱȱadherȱȱǰȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ ǯȱ
ȱȱǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱde novo Esposito’s chal-
ȱȱȱǯ
B
Esposito ȱȱdistrict court should have determined
his correct overall punishment and then conformed the sen-
tences on the individual counts to achieve that total. He relies
on the text of ǯǯǯ ǯȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǰȱ ȱȱȱrelevant part:
(b) … the court shall determine the total punish-
ment and shall impose that total punishment on
ȱȱǰȱ¡ȱȱȱ¡ȱ ȱ
ȱ¢ȱ ǯ
…
(d) ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱ
total punishment, then the sentence imposed on
one or more of the other counts shall run con-
¢ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ¡ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ
produce a combined sentence equal to the total

-- 5 of 9 --

6 No. 20-1124
punishment. In all other respects, sentences on
ȱȱȱȱ¢ǰȱ¡ȱȱȱ
exȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ ǯ
Esposito also cites United States v. De la TorreǰȱřŘŝȱǯřȱŜŖśȱ
(7th Cir. 2003), ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ǯȱ I¢, a
ŗśŗ-month sentence ȱȱfor the ȱ¢ȱȱ
¢ȱȱǰȱȱ ȱa 60-month concurrent
sentence for the distribution ȱ count. Id. at 607.
Due to Apprendi v. New Jersey, śřŖȱǯǯȱŚŜŜȱǻŘŖŖŖǼǰȱȱ¡Ȭ
mum sentence for the ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱŜŖȱ
moǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŗśŗ-month sentence ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱa ȱ ȱ¢ȱ¡ǰȱȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ Guidelines
ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ŗśŗ-month sentence. Id. at 607–08. The
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ the defendant’s sentence to 71
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱs and 60 months on
ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǯȱ Id. ȱ Ȭ
ment appealed.
This court reversed the district court in De la Torre. We ex-
plained that the purpose of the Guidelines is to determine the
ȃȱ Ȅȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǯȱ Id. 609–11.
ȱ¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
the GȱȱȱȱǯȱId. This holds true
even in cases like De la Torre, ȱat ȱȱȱȱȱ
offense ȱȱȱ ȱ¢ȱ¡ǯȱId. Of course,
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ¡ȱȱȬ
¢ȱ¡ȱȱȱǰȱȱȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǻǼȱȱȱ Ȭ
lines explains, the sentences for other counts can be set, con-
¢ȱȱ¢ǰȱȱȱȱȱǯȱ Id.

-- 6 of 9 --

No. 20-1124 7
See also United States v. Griffith, ŞśȱǯřȱŘŞŚȱǻŝȱǯȱŗşşŜǼ (con-
ȱthe same issue as in De la Torre).
Esposito’s ȱ here is technical, and it imports a
¢ȱ that the Guidelines do not require. If, before
ȱȱȱȱcount ¢ count, the district
court had stated ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢—rather than mer¢ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
total ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ—then, per Es-
posito, the district ȱ ȱȱȱǯȱAfter its sen-
ȱ ǰȱ the district court imposed sentences count
¢ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱŘŖŖȱ¢ǯ To the de-
fendant, ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱŘŖŖ-
¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ-¢-count sentences,
ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ -¢-count sentences
and then ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖȱ¢ǯȱ
The ¢ȱ Esposito’s ȱȱ before im-
sentence, the ȱȱ¢ȱdetermined that
Esposito’s total punishment should be life imprisonment. The
Ȃȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
a de facto term of life imprisonment before ȱ
prison terms on each count.
The district court ¡¢ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ
request to set his imprisonment based on his 28-¢ȱlife ex-
¢ǰȱȱ ȱ ȱȱȱthat ȱȱ ȱȬ
ȱȱȱsentence than that. The district ȱ ȱ
also alert to this court’s directive ȱȱȱ ȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
them. Still, the district court concluded that the defendant’s
ȱȱȱ—ǰȱǰȱǰȱǰȱ
ȱ ȱ — ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ £,

-- 7 of 9 --

8 No. 20-1124
and that Esposito’s crimes did ȱ ȱȱshorter sentence
equal to his ȱ¡¢ ȱȱȱȱ.
The district court further ȱ that it ȱ ȱ Ȭ
ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢, and the court
stated ¢ȱȱȱȱnever be around chil-
ȱ . So ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ the court meant to
impose ȱ ¢ȱ life sentence. Indeed, at oral ar-
ȱȱǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
made it clear that ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǯ1
Bȱȱȱ¢ȱ¡ȱ ȱȱȱȱ
in prison, the districȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȗȱ ś ŗǯŘǻǼǰȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
sentence. So, the district court did not ȱ¢ȱȱǯ
Esposito ȱȱȱȱȱppl¢ȱȱǰȱ -
step sequence that neither 18 U.S.C. ȗȱřśśřǻǼȱȱȱȬ
ȱ ȱ ǯ The text of § ś ŗǯŘ(b) provides that
the court shall determine the total punishment ȃȄȱ shall
impose that total punishment on each such count. That provi-
sion does not ¢ȱ“and thenȄ ȱ¡¢ȱȱȱȱcalcula-
tive process the defendant contends. Rather, § ś ŗǯŘ(b) ȱ
ȱȱȱȱcircumstance different than here. This
case fits better ȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǻǼǰȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ so ut ¢ȱ ȱ count
¡¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
out a term of de facto life imprisonment ¢ȱȱȱthe con-
secutive and concurrent sentences imposed here. 2
1 ȱument at ŝǱśŖ.
2 It also ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱǰȱDe
la Torreǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ

-- 8 of 9 --

No. 20-1124 9
III
We conclude that the district court did not err ȱim-
ȱȂȱǰȱȱ ȱA FFIRM .
than here. 327 F.3d at 609, 611. De la Torre predated United States v. Booker,
śŚřȱǯǯȱŘŘŖȱǻŘŖŖśǼǰȱ ȱȱ ȱȱovision of the federal sen-
ȱ that required sentences to ȱ ȱȱȱ Ȭ
ȱǰȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱfederal appeals courts
ȱȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱǯȱIdǯȱȱŘŚśǯ

-- 9 of 9 --

United States of America v. Jeffrey Esposito

Full text

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude