US v. Daniel Buczkowski, No. 12-4304 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4304 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DANIEL NICHOLAS BUCZKOWSKI, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at New Bern. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00159-F-1) Submitted: November 30, 2012 Decided: January 17, 2013 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Eric J. Brignac, Research and Writing Specialist, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. MayParker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Nicholas Buczkowski appeals the district court s imposition of a 360-month sentence imposed after remand. After a jury trial, Buczkowski was convicted of twenty-seven counts of transportation of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) (Counts One through Seventeen and Nineteen through Twenty-Eight) pornography in Twenty-Nine). and violation one of count 18 of U.S.C. possession of § 2252(a)(4)(B) child (Count The district court sentenced Buczkowski to 240 months imprisonment on Count One; 240 months imprisonment on Count Two, to imprisonment run on consecutively each of Counts to Count Three One; through 240 months Seventeen and Nineteen through Twenty-Eight, to run concurrently to Count Two; and 120 months imprisonment on Count Twenty-Nine, to run conviction and concurrently to Count Two. Buczkowski did not challenge his sentence for possession of child pornography, but he did appeal the twenty-seven conviction and Count One. Two through transportation sentence for the counts. first We affirmed transportation the count, We vacated the convictions and sentences for Counts Seventeen and Nineteen through multiplicitous and remanded for resentencing. Twenty-Eight See United States v. Buczkowski, 458 F. App x 311 (4th Cir. 2011) (No. 09-4938). 2 as On remand, the district court sentenced Buczkowski to consecutive sentences of 240 months imprisonment on Count One and 120 months imprisonment on Count Twenty-Nine, for a total sentence of 360 months. Buczkowski appeals, challenging the reasonableness of the sentence imposed on remand. We reasonableness review of a discretion standard. (2007). the sentence procedural under a and substantive deferential abuse-of- See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 Procedural reasonableness evaluates the method used to determine a defendant s sentence. A sentencing determination that does not conform to the procedural framework outlined [in Gall] is procedurally unreasonable. Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th United States v. MendozaCir. 2010). Substantive reasonableness examines the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied the standards set forth in [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a). Id. Buczkowski contends that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to sufficiently address his arguments that a below-Guidelines sentence would be appropriate given the twenty-year state sentence imposed for the sexual abuse of his grand-niece and the possibility of civil commitment after the completion of any federal sentence. United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 3 325, 328 (4th Cir. See 2009) ( Procedural errors include . . . failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence - including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. (internal quotation marks omitted)). We disagree. The transcript establishes that arguments. The the court of the court fully engaged both re-sentencing considered attorneys hearing Buczkowski s with questions about the state sentence and the possibility of civil commitment and about other issues raised by Buczkowski. Noting that the offense of conviction involved 27 images of child pornography and that Buczkowski repeatedly had sexually abused his grandniece, the district court concluded that Buczkowski was a sexual predator who presents a danger to society. (J.A. 667). And before announcing its sentence, the district court expressly adopted the findings of the revised presentence report and stated that it had considered the advisory sentencing range and the § 3553(a) factors. the district court It is thus clear from the record that considered Buczkowski s sentencing arguments. 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. but ultimately rejected See United States v. Lynn, 2010) (sentencing court must demonstrate that it considered the parties arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). The court s explanation of the within-Guideline sentence may not 4 have been lengthy, but it was sufficient. See United States v. Hernandez, 603 F.3d 267, 271 (4th Cir. 2010) ( Although every sentence requires explanation elaborate [for or an a adequate explanation, within-Guidelines lengthy . . . . sentence] . ). We . . the not need . be therefore reject Buczkowski s claim of procedural error. We likewise reject Buczkowski s claim that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because it was greater than necessary to serve the statutory sentencing purposes. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). While the sentence imposed by the court is undeniably it lengthy, is within the Guidelines advisory sentencing range and is therefore presumptively reasonable. Mendoza-Mendoza, arguments do insufficient not to 597 F.3d show at error overcome 216. by this the Buczkowski s district presumption. See appellate court and are Considering the totality of the circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it § 3553(a). chose satisfied the standards set forth in Id. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
