United States v. Abrams ( 2022 )

Case: 21-60589 Document: 00516308999 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 5, 2022
No. 21-60589
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Ryan Abrams,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:19-CR-88-1
Before Higginbotham, Dennis, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ryan Abrams pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
knowingly receiving explicit images of a minor using facilities of interstate
commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and 2252(b)(1). Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), Abrams and the
Government agreed that his sentence should not exceed the statutory
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60589 Document: 00516308999 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 21-60589
minimum of five years of imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1). But the
district court ultimately sentenced Abrams below that statutory minimum to
30 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The
Government appeals. Because we agree that the district court erred by
departing from the statutory minimum, we VACATE and REMAND.
I.
Under the terms of the agreement, Abrams pleaded guilty to one
count of a three-count indictment; in exchange, the Government agreed to
dismiss the remaining counts, did not object to a three-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility, and agreed, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C), that
Abrams’s sentence should not exceed the statutory minimum of five years of
imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(1) (setting forth mandatory
minimum). The PSR calculated a total offense level of 31 and a criminal
history category of I, setting the guidelines range at 108 to 135 months of
imprisonment. However, it noted that, subject to the district court’s
approval, Abrams’s plea agreement capped his sentence at the mandatory
minimum 60 months of imprisonment. Abrams objected to four
discretionary special conditions recommended in the PSR.
The Government requested a sentence in line with the plea agreement
and objected to any sentence below the mandatory minimum. Defense
counsel requested leniency, highlighting the victim’s age (three months shy
of 18 at the time of the offense), Abrams’s lack of any criminal history, and
testimony from a psychiatrist that Abrams was unlikely to reoffend. After
considering the circumstances surrounding the offense, Abrams’s clean
record, and the testimony presented, the court sentenced Abrams to 30
months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. The
Government objected to the sentence “as being an illegal sentence under the
2
Case: 21-60589 Document: 00516308999 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 21-60589
statute.” It then filed a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(b)(1)(B)(i).
II.
“Federal law explicitly cabins the district court’s discretion in
departing downward . . . from a statutory minimum sentence.” United States
v. Phillips, 382 F.3d 489, 498 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks
omitted). A district court may impose a sentence below the statutory
minimum only if the Government makes a motion pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) asserting the defendant’s substantial assistance to the
Government, or if the defendant meets the “safety valve” criteria set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Phillips, 382 F.3d at 499.
Here, the Government objected to any sentence below the statutory
minimum, and the “safety valve” in § 3553(f) is not applicable to Abrams’s
conviction under § 2252. Therefore, the district court erroneously sentenced
Abrams to a term of imprisonment below the statutory minimum. See
Phillips, 382 F.3d at 497-500; see also United States v. Krumnow, 476 F.3d 294,
297-98 (5th Cir. 2007). While Abrams now argues that the statutory
minimum sentence is unconstitutional as applied to him, he did not raise any
constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence in the district
court, and we decline to address the issue in the first instance.
Accordingly, Abrams’s sentence is VACATED, and the matter is
REMANDED for resentencing.
3