Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 13-4660
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cr-00011-MOC-DCK-1)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Brian Isdell pleaded guilty to failing to register as a sex
offender, see 18 U.S.C. 2250(a), and was sentenced to a 21month term of imprisonment to be followed by a 15-year term of
supervised
release.
Isdell
appeals
the
term
of
supervised
and
the
failed
15-year
to
adequately
term.
Finding
explain
no
its
reasons
reversible
error,
for
we
affirm.
I.
It is a crime under federal law to knowingly fail[] to
register
or
update
registration
as
required
by
the
Sex
term.
See
id.
5D1.2(c).
And
if
the
underlying
crime
The statute
PSR
prepared
in
anticipation
of
Isdells
sentencing
the
sentencing
hearing,
the
government
questioned
Counsel
for
the
government
noted
that
the
recently
changed
its
views
and
determined
that
not explain the basis for the Departments initial position, nor
did
it
Regarding
explain
the
why
the
appropriate
Department
term
in
had
this
changed
case,
the
its
view.
government
requested that the court vary upward and impose a 15-year term
of supervised release.
At no time during sentencing did counsel for Isdell argue
that
failure-to-register
Guidelines
definition
of
offense
sex
did
offense.
not
And
satisfy
while
the
counsel
district
court
ultimately
sentenced
Isdell
to
21
As to
the
sentence
Guidelines
is
therefore
supervised-release
procedurally
range
unreasonable.
and
that
Isdell
this
argument
is
raised
for
the
first
time
on
do
so
unless
the
error
seriously
affects
the
fairness,
United
States v. Aidoo, 670 F.3d 600, 611 (4th Cir. 2012) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
The first two prongs of the plain-error standard are met
here.
amended the commentary to 5D1.2 to clarify that failure-toregister violations under 18 U.S.C. 2250 are not sex offenses.
See U.S.S.G. 5D1.2, cmt. n.1 (2014).
effect
to
that
amendment
on
appeal.
United
States
v.
sex
offense,
and
the
Guidelines
advisory
supervised-
this
case.
As
noted
above,
Isdell
bears
the
burden
of
He cannot
Here, the
record does not show that the district court would have imposed
a shorter term of supervised release but for the error.
If
Because Isdell
must
select
what
it
believes
to
be
the
appropriate
case.
Regardless
Gall
of
v.
United
whether
the
below,
or
within-Guidelines
record
an
individualized
States,
district
U.S.
court
sentence,
assessment
552
it
based
38,
imposes
must
on
50
an
place
the
(2007).
above,
on
the
particular
contends
that
the
district
court
failed
to
We disagree.
court
during
the
sentencing
hearing
sufficiently
See
10