United States v. Terry Campie, No. 12-1102 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - sentence. District court did not abuse its discretion in imposing ten years of supervised release. Ten-year term is within advisory range and circumstances (his age upon completion of his imprisonment, his lack of prior criminal record and his education and employment) are not so compelling as to require fewer than ten years.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-1102 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Terry Marshall Campie, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport ____________ Submitted: September 17, 2012 Filed: December 11, 2012 [Unpublished] _____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, SMITH and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Terry Marshall Campie pleaded guilty to attempting to use the Internet knowingly to entice a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The district court1 sentenced him to a statutory minimum term of ten years imprisonment, followed by ten years of supervised release. Campie appeals, asserting the ten-year period of supervised release is unreasonable. We review the reasonableness of the term for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Brewer, 628 F.3d 975, 978 (8th Cir. 2010). Campie argues that his sentence is greater than necessary because he will be under supervision from ages sixty-four to seventy-four, he has no prior criminal record, and he is educated and employed. The advisory sentencing guidelines, however, recommend a term of supervised release between five years and life, USSG § 5D1.2(b)(2) & comment. (n.1); this is the same range authorized by statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k). By way of policy statement, the Sentencing Commission further recommends that the court impose the statutory maximum term of supervised release (here, life) when a defendant is convicted of a sex offense within the meaning of the guideline. Id. § 5D1.2(b) (policy statement). Because Campie s term of supervised release is within the advisory range, and indeed less than the recommended term of life, we presume that it is reasonable. United States v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 2005); see Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007). The circumstances cited by Campie are not so compelling as to require a term of supervised release of fewer than ten years. While Campie focuses on mitigating factors, other evidence militates in favor of a longer period of interaction with the probation office for a sex offender after incarceration namely, information that Campie has suffered from a history of depression and lacks social support other than a close relationship with his son. While a court may not lengthen a term of imprisonment to foster a defendant s rehabilitation, Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2- 2382, 2385 (2011); 18 U.S.C. § 3582(a), supervised release is governed by a different statute that directs the court to consider how to provide the defendant with correctional treatment in the most effective manner. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(c), 3553(a)(2)(D); see also United States v. Love, 19 F.3d 415, 417 n.4 (8th Cir. 1994) (citing legislative history that a primary goal of supervised release is to provide rehabilitation to a defendant who still needs supervision). And it is not self-evident, as Campie suggests, that it is a waste of government resources to supervise a sex offender in his seventies. Cf. United States v. Grigsby, 270 F. App x 726, 727 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Quinn, 257 F. App x 864, 866 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237, 249 n.11 (3d Cir. 2006). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -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.
