United States of America v. Dallas J. Crawford

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2018
___________________________
United States of America,
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,
v.
Dallas J. Crawford,
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: September 22, 2023
Filed: November 3, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM.
Dallas Crawford pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography.
See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). The district court* sentenced Crawford to 180 months’
imprisonment. Crawford appeals the sentence, and we affirm.
At sentencing, the parties jointly recommended a sentence of ninety-six
months’ imprisonment. Applying the guideline for sexual exploitation of a minor,
USSG § 2G2.1, the district court properly calculated an advisory range of 210 to 240
months’ imprisonment. The court then considered the sentencing factors under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a).
In fashioning a sentence, the court cited the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(6), and observed that the recommended sentence of ninety-six months was
well below the advisory guideline range. The court also cited statistics from a
Judicial Sentencing Information tool published by the United States Sentencing
Commission as a “data point” to consider. Those statistics showed that the mean and
median sentences for defendants sentenced under the same guideline within the last
five years were 194 and 192 months, respectively. The court discussed the other
§ 3553(a) factors and ultimately sentenced Crawford to 180 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal, Crawford argues that the district court committed procedural error
by considering the Sentencing Commission data without providing advance notice
that it would do so. Crawford did not object to the court’s consideration of the data,
so we review his contention for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); United States v.
Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-33 (1993).
*The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

In United States v. McDaniel, 59 F.4th 975 (8th Cir. 2023), this court addressed
a similar claim that a district court plainly erred by considering Sentencing
Commission data without disclosing its intent to do so. We concluded that the court
did not obviously err by relying on public information that was not specific to the
defendant. Although a court may not rely on private information about the
defendant’s crime and its impact on victims without alerting the defense in advance,
that disclosure rule has not been extended to public information. Id. at 979. The
holding in McDaniel resolves this appeal; there was no plain error warranting relief.
Crawford also contends that the district court imposed an unreasonable
sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment. “Where, as here, the court varied downward
from the guideline range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion
in not varying downward still further.” United States v. Espinoza, 9 F.4th 633, 637
(8th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation omitted).
Crawford complains that the court gave undue weight to the Sentencing
Commission data, but those statistics were only one piece of information that the
court considered. The court accepted to some extent Crawford’s arguments in
mitigation and varied downward from the bottom of the advisory range by thirty
months. The court declined to reduce the sentence further in view of Crawford’s
repeated use of technology to exploit a twelve-year-old victim, the need to avoid
unwarranted disparities, and the importance of deterrence and incapacitation. The
court acted within its discretion by imposing a sentence that varied downward from
the advisory guidelines but still represented a substantial measure of punishment for
a serious offense. See id.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --