Scott Key & Associates
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Embedded Counsel
    • Appeals
    • Trial Litigation
  • Meet The Team
    • Scott Key
    • Kayci Timmons
    • Tori Bradley
    • Sam Kuperberg
  • Resources
    • Blogs
    • Podcasts
    • Upload Consultation Documents
    • FAQs
  • Contact
  • Call 678-610-6624
  • Menu Menu

U.S. v. Irey: The Return of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in the 11th Circuit

August 4, 2010/by J. Scott Key

There is a moment in most great horror movies where the evil presence/bad guy/ghost/homicidal maniac takes out a character who has it coming. For a moment, the audience applauds the wicked antagonist. Think of Jason from Friday the 13th taking out a weaselly teen or the scene in Jurassic Park where the velociraptors eat Dennis Nedry (a/k/a Newman from Seinfeld). Eventually, though, the antagonist continues to do damage to good characters, bad characters, and everyone in between.

If the Federal criminal justice system is the horror movie, then the Federal Sentencing guidelines are the antagonist. Last week, Jason from Friday the 13th re-emerged from the lake. It just so happens that he took out William Irey, a guy who had it coming. But the Guidelines are back with a vengeance to haunt us in a way they haven’t since the Booker decision, and they’ve already started slashing away at the discretion of Federal District Court judges. If Mr. Irey applies for certiorari, then it may be time to start thinking movie antagonist on the level of the big red eye from The Lord of the Rings.

 

The Bad Guy Who Got What was Coming

Meet William Irey. Mr. Irey was a successful businessman who took multiple trips to Asia where he filmed himself exploiting children. He came back to the States and distributed the images over the internet. I am not going to say more. In fact, I have not found a blog or article on this case that recites the particulars. For that, you have to read the opinion (PDF). In summary, I don’t think I’ve read about worse facts in a child sexual crime case.

Mr. Irey plead to a single count of child sexual exploitation under 18 U.S.C. Section 2251, an offense that carries a range of punishment from fifteen to thirty years to serve. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of life in prison or the maximum sentence.

The sentencing judge deviated substantially from the guidelines recommendation and sentenced Mr. Irey to serve 17.5 years, just two and a half years over the minimum and a 12.5 year downward variance from the guidelines sentence.

To make things worse, the sentencing judge said some rather unfortunate things. The worst was the court’s decision to refer to Mr. Irey as a victim.

As Scott Greenfield put it in his post on the Irey case, the judges could not live with the prospect of Mr. Irey ever walking out of prison. David Oscar Marcus, at the Southern District of Florida Blog, reaches similar conclusions.

The problem is how they got there and the fact that the 11th Circuit has revived the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in a big way.

 

How the Majority Imposed the Maximum for Mr. Irey

Without resorting to straight opinion summary (because opinion summary is boring and impossible in this 256 beast of an opinion), the majority had a few obstacles to overcome to get Mr. Irey the time he deserved. The destruction of those obstacles will likely get a future defendant a sentence he does not deserve.

One obstacle was Rita v. United States – In that case, the Supreme Court held that a Federal appellate court may correct substantive sentencing mistakes resulting in sentences that are unreasonable, assuming that the appellate court is deferential to sentencing decisions.

The next was Gall v. United States, a case where a college sophomore was involved in a conspiracy to distribute ecstasy. He withdrew from it, finished college, and became a master carpenter. Two years later, he was prosecuted. His guidelines called for 30-37 months, but he was sentenced to serve a term of probation. The Court ultimately found its way to the Supreme Court, where it was upheld after the Court found that:

  • the standard of review for sentencing is abuse of discretion.
  • Courts of review must “give serious consideration” to the extent of any departure from the guidelines and must offer “sufficient justification” for its conclusion that an unusually harsh or light sentence is appropriate
  • The justification for the deviation from the guidelines range must be “sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.”

Having paid lip service to the abuse of discretion standard, the majority began critiquing the sentencing court’s reasoning in a de novo sort of way. By that, it took the mitigating factors from the trial court and argued the other side the way an advocate might. The majority attacked the mitigating testimony offered by a defense mental health expert as well as that offered by Mr. Irey’s family

Finally, the Court imposed a guidelines sentence in place of the sentence of the trial court.

 

Judge Hill’s Concurring Opinion

He deftly limits his vote on this case to its unique facts. He focuses on one simple question: “If this case does not demand the maximum sentence … what case would?” If Judge Hill’s opinion were the opinion of the Court, it would be difficult to cite it as precedent, and it would appear to be limited at least to the particular offense involving a defendant with conduct equally as gross and abusive as Mr. Irey’s. Of course, at bottom, Judge Hill is substituting one sentence for another in his position as an appellate judge.

 

Judge Tjoflat’s Opinion

Judge Tjoflat would have remanded the case with instruction to conduct a new sentencing hearing. He is disturbed by the majority’s approach

According to Judge Tjoflat the majority “orders the district court to impose [a new sentence] on remand. It does so on the basis of new evidence and arguments that the Government never presented to the district court. In short, we have assumed the role of resentencer. … Resentencing defendants on appeal does immense harm to this court’s institutional relationship with the district courts by transforming the district court’s sentence from the “main event” to a “tryout on the road.”

 

The Edmondson, Birch, Barkett, and Martin dissent

The dissent takes issue with the idea that a sentence that varies from the advisory sentencing guidelines is presumptively reasonable. The judges would not authorize a reversal of a sentencing decision if there is any evidence in the record to support it. The judges call out the majority as essentially applying a de novo standard the way the 8th Circuit did in the Gall decision.

In this case, the dissent found that there was some evidence to support 17.5 years and a lifetime of supervised release – namely, acceptance of responsibility, expression of remorse, cooperation with the government, family and friend testimony, and the testimony of the mental health expert.

While they might have imposed a different sentence, they supported the right of the sentencing judge to hear the evidence and render a different decision.

Finally, the judges say that they “dissent with respect and not without regret.”

 

Conclusion

While the result is commendable, this opinion is going to hamstring the Federal trial court bench. In such an atmosphere, with a defendant who is sufficiently vile (and “sufficiently vile” is a subjective moving target) it is unacceptable to sentence less than the guidelines.

It’s a disturbing opinion. The only more disturbing thing to imagine would be the Supreme Court granting a certiorari petition on these facts.

Tags: Abuse of Discretion, Booker, Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Gall, Irey, Rita, Tjoflat
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on X
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
0 0 J. Scott Key /wp-content/uploads/SK-Logo-Black-White.png J. Scott Key2010-08-04 23:32:502010-08-04 23:32:50U.S. v. Irey: The Return of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in the 11th Circuit
You might also like
Third Circuit: Mere Physical Proximity of Guns to Drugs Not Enough for Sentencing Enhancement
0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Related Resources

  • Living a Fulfilling Life (as a Lawyer)
  • Originalist Textualism 101 for Practitioners with Keith Blackwell
  • What I’ve Read, Heard, And Am Pondering This Week: June 1
  • Textualism As An Advocacy Tool
  • What I’ve Read, Heard, And Am Pondering This Week: March 7
  • Embracing the Legal Fundamentals with William Maselli

Archives

  • October 2024
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • October 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • July 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • July 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010

ADDRESS

199 W Jefferson St.
Madison, GA 30650

PHONE

678-610-6624

EMAIL

tori@scottkeylaw.com
© Scott Key & Associates, all rights reserved. | Website by Madison Studios  
  • LinkedIn
  • Youtube
Local Politicians are Criticizing the High Costs of InterpretersAre Law Review Articles Relevant in Georgia or 11th Circuit Appellate Decis...
Scroll to top