NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 18a0082n.06
Case No. 17-3623
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Feb 20, 2018 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ) OHIO JAMES CORTELYOU, ) ) Defendant-Appellant. )
BEFORE: COOK, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
COOK, Circuit Judge. James Cortelyou pleaded guilty to sending a minor sexually
explicit pictures that he had taken of her posing with fetish objects. Concluding that Cortelyou’s
conduct––which included sex with the victim––warranted an upward variance from the
Sentencing Guidelines range of 97 to 121 months, the district court sentenced him to
157 months’ imprisonment. For the reasons explained here, we AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
After meeting a 14-year-old Ohio girl through social media, Cortelyou traveled to Ohio
and had sex with her. He later emailed the victim pictures that he had taken of her in a hotel
room depicting her in various poses, partially naked, with objects including a diaper, a pacifier,
and a dog collar. One picture shows multiple red markings across the victim’s back that had
been inflicted using a flogger. Case No. 17-3623, United States v. James Cortelyou
After a grand jury charged Cortelyou with three counts related to various sex offenses,
he pleaded guilty to one count of distributing a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually
explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The Presentence Investigation Report
concluded that the applicable Guidelines sentence should be the statutory maximum of twenty
years.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court agreed to follow the lower offense level
calculations in Cortelyou’s plea agreement, which resulted in an advisory Guidelines range of
97 to 121 months’ imprisonment. Cortelyou, his counsel, the government, and the victim’s
parents then each addressed the court. The victim’s parents testified that following their
daughter’s experience with Cortelyou she had attempted suicide six times and had to spend
170 days in the hospital for psychiatric care.
After hearing from everyone, the district court determined that the advisory Guidelines
range was insufficient and that Cortelyou’s actual conduct warranted a sentence of 157 months.
Cortelyou’s counsel objected that the court had not provided advance notice that it was
contemplating an upward variance, and the court agreed to keep the hearing open for two weeks
so that Cortelyou and the government could provide supplemental materials for the court to
consider. Following the supplemental submissions, the court reaffirmed the 157-month sentence.
Cortelyou now appeals that sentence.
II. DISCUSSION
Cortelyou contends that the upward variance resulted in a substantively unreasonable
sentence. We review the substantive reasonableness of a criminal sentence under a deferential
2 Case No. 17-3623, United States v. James Cortelyou
abuse-of-discretion standard taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the
extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) govern the substantive reasonableness inquiry. United
States v. Robinson, 778 F.3d 515, 519 (6th Cir. 2015). “A sentence may be considered
substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the
sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an
unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d
508, 520 (6th Cir. 2008).
A.
Cortelyou maintains that the district court relied too heavily on the testimony of the
victim’s parents without fully considering Cortelyou’s arguments. A district court “may place
great weight on one factor” if the facts so warrant. United States v. Adkins, 729 F.3d 559, 571
(6th Cir. 2013). Furthermore, the sentencing judge is not required to explicitly address every
mitigating argument that a defendant makes so long as the judge satisfies “the appellate court
that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own
legal decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Madden, 515 F.3d 601, 611–13 (6th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).
The district court explained the basis for Cortelyou’s sentence at the hearing and in an
order following the parties’ supplemental submissions. The court underscored that the nature
and circumstances of the offense warranted an upward sentencing variance because Cortelyou’s
case differed from the typical child pornography case. Unlike cases where someone simply
3 Case No. 17-3623, United States v. James Cortelyou
downloads child pornography, Cortelyou actually had sex with his minor victim, resulting in
serious harm to her mental and emotional health. Given Cortelyou’s actions, the court also
determined that public safety concerns necessitated a longer sentence. Additionally, the court
discussed other § 3553(a) factors, including affording adequate deterrence, promoting respect for
the law, and providing just punishment.
Cortelyou claims that the district court failed to consider his supplemental sentencing
materials, such as evidence suggesting that the victim had mental health problems before she met
Cortelyou. To the contrary, the district court affirmed that it “carefully reviewed” the
supplemental information provided by both parties. Indeed, the court’s supplemental order
specifically acknowledged the evidence indicating that the victim had told Cortelyou, prior to
their encounters, that she had psychological problems. But the court determined that this
evidence further justified a higher sentence: “If this was the case, that makes his conduct even
worse, as he should have realized that his conduct was likely to exacerbate the condition of an
already fragile young girl.”
Cortelyou also contends that the district court “inappropriately balanced” the information
provided at sentencing and failed to adequately consider his risk of recidivism. But again, a
district court need not respond to every argument a defendant raises when discussing the § 3553
factors, especially in cases like this where the court highlighted other aspects of the defendant’s
conduct. See United States v. Tanner, 382 F. App’x 421, 427–28 (6th Cir. 2010) (“The
district court was not required to mention each of the personal characteristics raised by [the
defendant], especially since it explicitly considered other factors that fall
4 Case No. 17-3623, United States v. James Cortelyou
under § 3553(a)(1) . . . .”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 18a0082n.06
Case No. 17-3623
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Feb 20, 2018 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. ) THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ) OHIO JAMES CORTELYOU, ) ) Defendant-Appellant. )
BEFORE: COOK, McKEAGUE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
COOK, Circuit Judge. James Cortelyou pleaded guilty to sending a minor sexually
explicit pictures that he had taken of her posing with fetish objects. Concluding that Cortelyou’s
conduct––which included sex with the victim––warranted an upward variance from the
Sentencing Guidelines range of 97 to 121 months, the district court sentenced him to
157 months’ imprisonment. For the reasons explained here, we AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
After meeting a 14-year-old Ohio girl through social media, Cortelyou traveled to Ohio
and had sex with her. He later emailed the victim pictures that he had taken of her in a hotel
room depicting her in various poses, partially naked, with objects including a diaper, a pacifier,
and a dog collar. One picture shows multiple red markings across the victim’s back that had
been inflicted using a flogger. Case No. 17-3623, United States v. James Cortelyou
After a grand jury charged Cortelyou with three counts related to various sex offenses,
he pleaded guilty to one count of distributing a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually
explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). The Presentence Investigation Report
concluded that the applicable Guidelines sentence should be the statutory maximum of twenty
years.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court agreed to follow the lower offense level
calculations in Cortelyou’s plea agreement, which resulted in an advisory Guidelines range of
97 to 121 months’ imprisonment. Cortelyou, his counsel, the government, and the victim’s
parents then each addressed the court. The victim’s parents testified that following their
daughter’s experience with Cortelyou she had attempted suicide six times and had to spend
170 days in the hospital for psychiatric care.
After hearing from everyone, the district court determined that the advisory Guidelines
range was insufficient and that Cortelyou’s actual conduct warranted a sentence of 157 months.
Cortelyou’s counsel objected that the court had not provided advance notice that it was
contemplating an upward variance, and the court agreed to keep the hearing open for two weeks
so that Cortelyou and the government could provide supplemental materials for the court to
consider. Following the supplemental submissions, the court reaffirmed the 157-month sentence.
Cortelyou now appeals that sentence.
II. DISCUSSION
Cortelyou contends that the upward variance resulted in a substantively unreasonable
sentence. We review the substantive reasonableness of a criminal sentence under a deferential
2 Case No. 17-3623, United States v. James Cortelyou
abuse-of-discretion standard taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the
extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
The factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) govern the substantive reasonableness inquiry. United
States v. Robinson, 778 F.3d 515, 519 (6th Cir. 2015). “A sentence may be considered
substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the
sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an
unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d
508, 520 (6th Cir. 2008).
A.
Cortelyou maintains that the district court relied too heavily on the testimony of the
victim’s parents without fully considering Cortelyou’s arguments. A district court “may place
great weight on one factor” if the facts so warrant. United States v. Adkins, 729 F.3d 559, 571
(6th Cir. 2013). Furthermore, the sentencing judge is not required to explicitly address every
mitigating argument that a defendant makes so long as the judge satisfies “the appellate court
that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own
legal decisionmaking authority.” United States v. Madden, 515 F.3d 601, 611–13 (6th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)).
The district court explained the basis for Cortelyou’s sentence at the hearing and in an
order following the parties’ supplemental submissions. The court underscored that the nature
and circumstances of the offense warranted an upward sentencing variance because Cortelyou’s
case differed from the typical child pornography case. Unlike cases where someone simply
3 Case No. 17-3623, United States v. James Cortelyou
downloads child pornography, Cortelyou actually had sex with his minor victim, resulting in
serious harm to her mental and emotional health. Given Cortelyou’s actions, the court also
determined that public safety concerns necessitated a longer sentence. Additionally, the court
discussed other § 3553(a) factors, including affording adequate deterrence, promoting respect for
the law, and providing just punishment.
Cortelyou claims that the district court failed to consider his supplemental sentencing
materials, such as evidence suggesting that the victim had mental health problems before she met
Cortelyou. To the contrary, the district court affirmed that it “carefully reviewed” the
supplemental information provided by both parties. Indeed, the court’s supplemental order
specifically acknowledged the evidence indicating that the victim had told Cortelyou, prior to
their encounters, that she had psychological problems. But the court determined that this
evidence further justified a higher sentence: “If this was the case, that makes his conduct even
worse, as he should have realized that his conduct was likely to exacerbate the condition of an
already fragile young girl.”
Cortelyou also contends that the district court “inappropriately balanced” the information
provided at sentencing and failed to adequately consider his risk of recidivism. But again, a
district court need not respond to every argument a defendant raises when discussing the § 3553
factors, especially in cases like this where the court highlighted other aspects of the defendant’s
conduct. See United States v. Tanner, 382 F. App’x 421, 427–28 (6th Cir. 2010) (“The
district court was not required to mention each of the personal characteristics raised by [the
defendant], especially since it explicitly considered other factors that fall
4 Case No. 17-3623, United States v. James Cortelyou
under § 3553(a)(1) . . . .”). Notably, Cortelyou neither disputes that he had sex with the victim
nor contends that the court based its decision on an impermissible factor. Instead, Cortelyou
ultimately asks us to balance the § 3553(a) factors differently than the district court. Such a
request is “simply beyond the scope of our appellate review, which looks to whether the sentence
is reasonable, as opposed to whether in the first instance we would have imposed the same
sentence.” United States v. Sexton, 512 F.3d 326, 332 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v.
Ely, 468 F.3d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 2006)). Because the district court justified its decision to vary
upward after considering the relevant sentencing factors, we conclude the court acted within its
discretion.
B.
Next, Cortelyou asserts that his 157-month sentence resulted in an unwarranted
sentencing disparity. He points out that according to statistics from the United States Sentencing
Commission the average sentence was 145 months for child pornography cases and 144 months
for sexual abuse cases in 2016. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2016 Sourcebook of Federal
Sentencing Statistics, tbl. 13 (21st ed. 2017).
Section 3553(a)(6) requires courts to consider “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar
conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553. “[N]ational uniformity is generally taken into account by the
Sentencing Guidelines, which are almost certainly the best indication of ordinary practice since
most sentences are within the guidelines.” United States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620, 626 (6th Cir.
2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). And where the district judge “correctly calculated and
5 Case No. 17-3623, United States v. James Cortelyou
carefully reviewed the Guidelines range, he necessarily gave significant weight and
consideration to the need to avoid unwarranted disparities.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 54.
The district court here carefully calculated and reviewed the Guidelines range based on
Cortelyou’s plea agreement. That Guidelines range related to the distribution of child
pornography, but the court determined that Cortelyou’s specific conduct took his case “out of the
heartland of child pornography cases, warranting an upward departure.” In considering the
extent of the deviation, we “give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a)
factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” Id. at 51. After examining Cortelyou’s
actions in light of the § 3553(a) factors, the court offered a compelling explanation for the
upward variance. We determine that the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Cortelyou to 157 months. See United States v. Lanning, 633 F.3d 469, 476 (6th Cir. 2011)
(affirming upward variance because the “district court thoroughly reviewed the § 3553(a) factors
and determined that the specific nature of [the defendant’s] actions justified its decision to vary
upward”).
III. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.