US v. Brian Slott, No. 12-5011 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-5011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. BRIAN KEITH SLOTT, a/k/a Amy Farmer, a/k/a Buffy Tanner, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:10-cr-00053-RLV-DSC-4) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: January 8, 2014 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Norman Butler, LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN BUTLER, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Melissa L. Rikard, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brian Keith Slott appeals the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute child pornography, receipt of child § 2252A(a)(2). in violation pornography, Slott was of in subject 18 U.S.C. violation to a § 2252A, of 18 mandatory and U.S.C. minimum sentence due to his prior Wisconsin conviction for first-degree sexual assault of a child. See id. § 2252A(b)(1). On appeal, Slott argues that his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. We affirm. We review challenges to sentences on Eighth Amendment grounds de novo. (4th Cir. 2009). United States v. Malloy, 568 F.3d 166, 180 The Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment and implicitly requires that a criminal sentence be proportionate to the crime or crimes of conviction. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 284 (1983). Solem v. Generally, three factors [are] considered in conducting such a proportionality review: (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty, (2) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction, and (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions. 66 (4th Cir. 1995) United States v. Kratsas, 45 F.3d 63, (citing Solem, 463 U.S. at Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 59-60 (2010) (same). 2 292); see Slott does not argue that his sentence unconstitutional in light of the above considerations. is Instead, he suggests that we should adopt an alternative proportionality review analysis that focuses on the specific characteristics of a defendant and his offense, thereby allowing a district court to disregard statutory mandatory minimums based on consideration of the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). its Because Slott fails to identify any authority supporting such a drastic break with suggestion established is not well Eighth taken. Amendment See precedent, Rodriguez de his Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989). Accordingly, however, that the we affirm judgment and the judgment. commitment order We note, contains a clerical error, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. We therefore remand this limited case to the district court for the purpose of correcting the offense in Count 5 to reflect the offense to which Slott pled guilty receipt of child pornography. dispense with contentions before this oral are court argument because adequately and the presented argument would not facts in aid and We legal the materials the decisional process. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED 3
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.
