Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. The district court did not err in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2G2.1(b)(4)(A) for possession of child pornography depicting sadistic or masochistic conduct; nor did the court err in imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice under Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1 after defendant sent a threatening message to the victim; sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable; the district court did not err in imposing a special condition of supervised release requiring defendant to seek employment and work full time unless excused by his probation officer. [ March 02, 2020 ]
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2665 ___________________________ United States of America, lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee, v. John Hunt, lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________ Submitted: February 28, 2020 Filed: March 3, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. John Hunt appeals after he pleaded guilty to child exploitation and child pornography offenses, and the district court1 sentenced him to a prison term within 1 The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. the advisory sentencing guideline range. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel argues that the district court erred at sentencing in applying two guideline enhancements and in considering a contested fact. Counsel also argues that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable prison term and abused its discretion in imposing a special condition of supervised release. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in applying the enhancements. Specifically, the enhancement for material involving sadistic or masochistic conduct applied because the offense involved material portraying intercourse with a minor. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1(b)(4)(A); cf. United States v. Belflower, 390 F.3d 560, 562 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). The enhancement for obstruction of justice applied based on threatening messages that Hunt sent to the victim. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.4(k)). Counsel’s suggestion that the district court failed to make an express factual finding regarding a contested fact is refuted by the record. R. Doc. 56, at 53, line 17. We further conclude that the district court did not impose a substantively unreasonable prison term, as the court adequately based the sentence on the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and we presume that a term within the advisory guideline range is reasonable. See United States v. Callaway, 762 F.3d 754, 760 (8th Cir. 2014). In addition, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a special condition of supervised release that Hunt must seek employment and work full time unless excused by the probation office. Cf. United States v. Munoz, 812 F.3d 809, 819 (10th Cir. 2016). Finally, having reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. ______________________________ -2-
]]>
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.
