United States v. Jeffrey Esposito

Opinion

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

____________________

No. 20-1124 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JEFFREY ESPOSITO, Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Case No. 1:18-CR-00109— Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED MAY 12, 2021 — DECIDED JUNE 11, 2021

____________________

Before FLAUM, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. Žě›Ž¢ȱœ™˜œ’˜, convicted of mul-

’™•Žȱ Œ˜ž—œȱ ˜ȱ œŽ¡žŠ••¢ȱ Ž¡™•˜’’—ȱŠȱ Œ‘’•ȱ Šœȱ Ž••ȱ Šœȱof pos- œŽœœ’—ȱ Œ‘’•ȱ ™˜›—˜›Š™‘¢ǰȱ Šœȱ œŽ—Ž—ŒŽȱ ˜ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ŽŠ›œȱ ’—ȱ prison. He appeals, Š›ž’—ȱthat the district Ž››Žȱ ‘Ž—ǰȱ›ŠȬ ‘Ž›ȱ ‘Š—ȱ ꛜȱ ŽŽ›–’—’—ȱ ‘’œȱ ˜Š•ȱ ™ž—’œ‘–Ž—ǰȱ œŽ—Ž—ŒŽœȱ Ž›Žȱ’–™˜œŽȱ˜n each individual count and then added to- Ž‘Ž›. Because the district court did not err ‘Ž—ȱœŽ—Ž—Œ’—ȱ Espositoǰȱ ŽȱŠĜ›–.

2 No. 20-1124

I

Ž›Ž¢ȱ œ™˜œ’˜ȱ œŽ¡žŠ••¢ȱ ŠœœŠž•Žȱ and abused his adopted son from Guatemala ˜›ȱ¢ŽŠ›œǰȱ‹Ž’——’—ȱ ‘Ž—ȱ‘’œȱ œ˜—ȱ ŠœȱœŽŸŽ— ˜›ȱŽ’‘ ¢ŽŠ›œȱ˜•ȱŠ—ȱŽ—’—ȱŠȱcouple of ¢ŽŠ›œȱ before he turned sixteen. œ™˜œ’˜Ȃœȱ Œ›’–Žœȱ Ž›Žȱ repetitive, œ‘˜Œ”’—ǰȱand horrific. In addition to anal and oral penetration , ’—Œ•ž’—ȱ ’‘ȱ˜‹“ŽŒœǰ ‘ŽȱŠ‹žœŽȱ’—Œ•žŽȱž›’—Š’—ȱ˜—ǰȱ Œ‘˜”’—ǰȱ ‘’™™’—ǰȱ¢’—ǰȱŠ—ȱ™ž’—ȱŠȱŒ˜••Š›ȱ˜—ȱ‘ŽȱŸ’Œ’–ǯȱ Esposito documented his abuse in videos and ™‘˜˜›Š™‘’Œȱ ’–ŠŽœȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱ‘Žȱœ‘Š›Žȱon•’—Žȱ˜—ȱ‘ŽȱŠ›”ȱ Ž‹. He had also ˜ —•˜ŠŽȱ ˜‘Ž›ȱ Œ‘’•ȱ ™˜›—˜›Š™‘¢—hundreds of thou- œŠ—œȱ˜ȱ’–ŠŽœȱŠ—ȱŸ’Ž˜œ—‹¢ȱ‘Žȱ’–Žȱ‘Žȱ ŠœȱŠ››ŽœŽȱ‹¢ȱ ŽŽ›Š•ȱ•Š ȱŽ—˜›ŒŽ–Ž—.

œ™˜œ’˜ȱ ŠœȱŒ‘Š›Žȱ ’‘ȱŘŖȱŒ˜ž—œȱ˜ȱœŽ¡žŠ••¢ȱŽ¡™•˜’Ȭ ’—ȱŠȱ–’—˜›ǰȱŽŠŒ‘ȱ›Ž•ŽŒ’—ȱŠȱ’Ž›Ž—ȱ’—œŠ—ŒŽȱ˜ȱŠ‹žœŽȱ˜ŒȬ u–Ž—Žȱ ’—ȱ Ÿ’Ž˜œȱ Š—ȱ ’–ŠŽœȱ taken ‹¢ȱ ‘Žȱ ŽŽ—Š—ǯȱ Žȱ ŠœȱŠ•œ˜ȱŒ‘Š›Žȱ ’‘ȱ˜—ŽȱŒ˜ž—ȱ˜ȱ™˜œœŽœœ’—ȱŒ‘’•ȱ™˜›—˜Ȭ ›Š™‘¢ǯȱEsposito ™•ŽŠŽȱž’•¢ȱ ’‘˜žȱŠȱ™•ŽŠȱŠ›ŽŽ–Ž—.

I—ȱ‘Žȱ™›ŽœŽ—Ž—ŒŽȱ’—ŸŽœ’Š’˜—ȱ›Ž™˜›ǰȱ‘Žȱdefendant’s of-

Ž—œŽȱ•ŽŸŽ•ȱ Šœȱ ŒŠ•Œž•ŠŽȱŠȱśŗǰȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱŽŠž•Žȱ˜ȱa maximum of 43 ž—Ž›ȱ‘ŽȱŽ—Ž—Œ’—ȱ ž’Ž•’—Žœ. Esposito had no Œ›’–’—Š•ȱ ‘’œ˜›¢ǯȱ ‘Žȱ ›Žœž•’—ȱ Gž’Ž•’—Žœȱ ›Š—Žȱ Šœȱ •’Žȱ ’—ȱ prison, but none of the crimes ˜ȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱ œ™˜œ’˜ȱ Šœȱ Œ˜—Ȭ victed ‘Šȱ Šȱ œŠž˜›¢ȱ –Š¡’–ž–ȱ ˜ȱ •’Žȱ ’–™›’œ˜—–Ž—. The probation department recommended that Esposito be imprisoned ˜›ȱŜŖŖȱ¢ŽŠ›œǯȱ‘Žȱ˜ŸŽ›—–Ž— Š›žŽȱ˜›ȱŜŘŖȱ¢ŽŠ›œǯȱ‘Žȱ defense œžŽœŽȱ420 months, œ˜ȱœ™˜œ’˜ȱ ˜žld finish his œŽ—Ž—ŒŽȱ’—ȱŠ™™›˜¡’–ŠŽ•¢ȱŘŞȱ¢ŽŠ›œǯȱ‘Šȱ•Ž—‘ȱ ˜ž•ȱ’ŸŽȱ Esposito, ‘˜ȱ ’œȱ in his mid-fifties, a chance at release from prison near the end of his life.

No. 20-1124 3

ȱ ‘Žȱ œŽ—Ž—Œ’—ȱ ‘ŽŠ›’—ǰȱ the district court explained ‘¢ȱ’ȱconcluded that a de fact˜ȱ•’ŽȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽȱ ŠœȱŠ™™›˜™›’ŠŽ for Esposito. Then the court pronounced Esposito’s sentences, count ‹¢ countǰȱ’–™˜œ’—ȱsix 30-¢ŽŠ›ȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽœȱto be served consecutive to each other, ˜••˜ Žȱ ‹¢ȱ fifteen 20-¢ŽŠ›ȱ œŽ—Ȭ tences to be served concurrent ’‘ each other but consecutive to the 30-¢ŽŠ›ȱ œŽ—Ž—ŒŽœǯȱ These sentences totaled 200 ¢ŽŠ›œȱ’—ȱ™›’œ˜—ǯ œ™˜œ’˜ȱ —˜ ȱ Š™™ŽŠ•œ, claim’— the district court sen- Ž—ŒŽȱ‘’–ȱŽ››˜—Ž˜žœ•¢ǯȱ ŽȱŠ›žŽœȱ‘ŽȱŒ˜ž›ȱœ‘˜ž•ȱ‘ŠŸŽȱŒ˜—Ȭ sidered his criminal conduct, ‘’œ˜›¢, and characteristics as a ‘˜•Ž, determined an appropriate overall punishment, and then set the sentences for each count to equal that overall punishment .

II

A

‘Žȱ™Š›’Žœȱ’œ™žŽȱ‘ŽȱœŠ—Š›ȱ˜ȱ›ŽŸ’Ž ǯȱt the sentenc-

’—ȱ‘ŽŠ›’—, the defendant ’ȱ—˜ȱ˜‹“ŽŒȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱmethod the court used to arrive at his sentences, al‘˜ž‘ȱ ‘Žȱ ’ȱ œŽŽ”ȱ clarification of the consecutive-versus-concurrent aspect of the sentences Š—ȱ‘˜ ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖȱ¢ŽŠ›œȱ ŠœȱŒŠ•Œž•ŠŽǯȱ The defendant contends he has raised a procedural chal-

•Ž—Žǰȱ œ˜ȱ ›ŽŸ’Ž ȱ ’œȱ Žȱ —˜Ÿ˜ǯȱ See United States v. Ballardǰȱ şśŖȱ F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2020); United States v. Pennington, 908 F.3d 234, 238 (7th Cir. 2018). He Š•œ˜ȱŠ›žŽœȱ‘Žȱ‘Šȱ—˜ȱ˜‹•’ŠȬ ’˜—ȱ˜ȱ˜‹“ŽŒȱunder ŽŽ›Š•ȱž•Žȱ˜ȱ›’–’—Š•ȱ›˜ŒŽž›ŽȱśŗǻŠǼ, ‘’Œ‘ȱ™›˜Ÿ’Žœȱ“[e]¡ŒŽ™’˜—œȱ˜ȱ›ž•’—œȱ˜›ȱ˜›Ž›œȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŒ˜ž›ȱ Š›Žȱž——ŽŒŽœœŠ›¢ǯȄ T‘Žȱ˜ŸŽ›—–Ž—ȱœubmits that the plain error doctrine und Ž›ȱ ŽŽ›Š•ȱ ž•Žȱ ˜ȱ ›’–’—Š•ȱ ›˜ŒŽž›Žȱ ž•Žȱ śŘǻ‹Ǽȱ should 4 No. 20-1124

appl¢ here. Plain error has three elements: the error (1) has —˜ȱ‹ŽŽ—ȱ’—Ž—’˜—Š••¢ȱ›Ž•’—šž’œ‘Žȱ˜›ȱŠ‹Š—˜—Žǰȱ(2) must be clear or obvious, and (3) must have affected the defendant’s œž‹œŠ—’Š•ȱ›’hts. Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338, 1343 (2016). Žȱœ‘˜ž•ȱ›ŽŸ’Ž ȱ˜›ȱ™lain errorǰȱ‘Žȱ˜ŸȬ Ž›—–Ž—ȱŠ›žŽœǰȱ‹ŽŒŠžœŽȱœ™˜œ’˜ȱ Šœȱ’ŸŽ—ȱŠ—ȱ˜™™˜›ž—’¢ȱ ˜ȱ˜‹“ŽŒȱŠȱ‘ŽȱœŽ—Ž—Œ’—ȱ‘ŽŠ›’—ȱ‹žȱŠ’•Žȱ˜ȱ˜ȱœ˜ǯȱ But Œ˜—›Š›¢ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ˜ŸŽ›—–Ž—’s position, a Œ˜ž›ȂœȱŽ—Ȭ Ž›Š•ȱ’—Ÿ’Š’˜—ȱ˜›ȱ˜‹“ŽŒ’˜—œȱ’œȱ—˜ȱŽ—˜ž‘ȱ˜ȱœ‘˜ ȱ Š’ŸŽ›ȱ˜›ȱ ˜›Ž’ž›Žȱ ‹¢ȱ ‘Žȱ ŽŽ—Š—ǯȱ Id. As this court concluded in United States v. SpeedǰȱŞŗŗȱǯřȱŞśŚȱǻŝ‘ȱ’›ǯȱŘŖŗŜǼ, Œ˜ž›œȱ˜—•¢ȱ Ž•’Œ’ȱ Š’ŸŽ›ȱ ‘Ž—ȱ‘Ž¢ȱŠœ”ȱœ™ŽŒ’’ŒȱšžŽœtions—like ‘Ž‘Ž›ȱ ‘ŽȱŽŽ—Š—ȱ’œȱœŠ’œ’Žȱ ’‘ȱ‘ŽȱŒ˜ž›Ȃœȱ›ŽŠ–Ž—ȱ˜ȱ‘Ž’›ȱ –Š’—ȱ Š›ž–Ž—œȱ ’—ȱ –’’Š’˜———˜ȱ Ž—Ž›Š•’£Žȱ ’—šž’›’Žœȱ about ‘Ž‘Ž›ȱ‘Ž ŽŽ—Š—ȱ Šœȱconfused or had Š—¢‘’—ȱ Ž•œŽȱ˜ȱœŠ¢ǯ Id. at Şśŝ–śŞ; see also United States v. Mzembe, 979 F.3d 1169, 1173 (7th Cir. 2020) ǻȃȱŽ—Ž›Š•ȱ’—Ÿ’Š’˜—ȱ˜›ȱ˜‹Ȭ “ŽŒ’˜—œȱ˜›ȱŠœ”’—ǰȱȃŠ—¢‘’—ȱŽ•œŽǵȄȱŠȱ‘ŽȱŽ—ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ‘ŽŠ›’—ȱ ’œȱ—˜ȱœž’Œ’Ž—ǰȱ‘˜ ŽŸŽ›ǰȱ˜ȱœ‘˜ ȱŠȱ Š’ŸŽ›ȱ˜ȱŒ‘Š••Ž—Žœȱ˜ȱ ‘Žȱœž’Œ’Ž—Œ¢ȱ˜ȱŠ—ȱŽ¡™•Š—Š’˜—ǯȄǼǯȱ Ž›Žǰȱ‘Žȱ’œ›’Œȱ“žŽ’s i—šž’›¢ǰȱ ‘’•Žȱ—˜ȱŒ˜–™•ŽŽ•¢ȱŽ—Ž›Š•ǰȱ Šœȱ‹›˜ŠDZȱ ˜ž—œŽ•ǰȱ˜ȱ¢˜žȱ‘ŠŸŽȱŠ—¢ȱ•ŽŠ•ȱ˜‹“ŽŒ’˜—ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ œŽ—Ž—ŒŽȱ ȱ‘ŠŸŽȱ™›˜™˜œŽȱ˜›ȱ›ŽšžŽœȱŠ—¢ȱž›‘Ž›ȱ Ž•Š‹˜›Š’˜—ȱ˜ȱ–¢ȱ›ŽŠœ˜—œȱž—Ž›ȱŽŒ’˜—ȱřśśřǻŠǼȱ Šœȱ ˜ȱ ‘Žȱ •Ž—‘ȱ ˜ȱ ’–™›’œ˜—–Ž—ȱ ˜›ȱ Šœȱ ˜ȱ ‘Žȱ •Ž—‘ȱ Š—Ȧ˜›ȱ Œ˜nditions of supervised release ǽǵǾ ‘ŽȱŽŽ—œŽȱŒ˜ž—œŽ•ȱ›Žœ™˜—Žȱ‹¢ȱœŽŽ”’—ȱŠ—ȱ›ŽŒŽ’Ÿ’—ȱan Ž¡™•Š—Š’˜—ȱ˜ȱ‘˜ ȱthe court had calculated the consecutive Š—ȱ Œ˜—Œž››Ž—ȱ œŽ—Ž—ŒŽœȱ ˜ȱ ˜Š•ȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ŽŠ›œȱ ’–™›’œ˜—–Ž—ǯȱ ’ŸŽ—ȱ‘’œȱŒ˜••˜šž¢ǰȱ Žȱ˜ȱ—˜ȱ’—ȱ Š’ŸŽ›ȱ˜› forfeiture.

No. 20-1124 ś

The defense has the better of th’œȱ’œŠ›ŽŽ–Ž—. Esposito Š›žŽœȱ‘Žȱdistrict Œ˜ž›ȱŽ››Žȱ‹¢ȱŽŽ›–’—’—ȱ™ž—’œ‘–Ž—ȱ˜—ȱ ŽŠŒ‘ȱ’—’Ÿ’žŠ•ȱŒ˜ž—ȱŠ—ȱ‘Ž—ȱŠ’—ȱ‘˜œŽȱŽ›–œȱ˜Ž‘Ž›ȱ ˜ȱ ’–™˜œŽȱ Šȱ ˜Š•ȱ œŽ—Ž—ŒŽǯȱ —ȱ ˜‘Ž›ȱ ˜›œǰȱ ‘Žȱ ’œ™žŽœȱ ‘Žȱ Š¢ȱ‘ŽȱŒ˜ž›ȱ™›˜—˜ž—ŒŽȱŠ—ȱŽ¡™•Š’—Žȱ‘’œȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽǯȱȱThis ’œȱ™›˜™Ž›•¢ȱŒ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’£ŽȱŠœȱŠȱ™›˜ŒŽural error. Gall v. United States, śśŘȱǯǯȱřŞǰȱśŗȱǻŘŖŖŝǼȱǻȃŠ’•’—ȱ˜ȱŠŽšžŠŽ•¢ȱŽ¡™•Š’—ȱ‘Žȱ Œ‘˜œŽ—ȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽȄǼDzȱsee also Pennington, 908 F.3d at 238 (chal- •Ž—’—ȱ‘Žȱœž’Œ’Ž—Œ¢ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ’œ›’ŒȱŒ˜ž›ȂœȱŽ¡™•Š—Š’˜—ȱ˜ȱ’œȱ œŽ—Ž—Œ’—ȱŽŒ’œ’˜—ȱ ŠœȱŠȱ™›˜ŒŽž›al error). Esposito claims the district court Ž››Žȱ‹¢ȱ—˜ȱadher’—ȱ˜ȱ™›˜ŒŽž›Žǰȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱ Šœȱ‘ŽȱŽŽ—Š—ȱ™˜’—œȱ˜žȱ Š››Š—œȱŽȱ—˜Ÿ˜ȱ›ŽŸ’Ž ǯȱ ˜›ȱ‘ŽœŽȱ›ŽŠœ˜—œǰȱ Žȱ ’••ȱ›ŽŸ’Ž ȱde novo Esposito’s chal- •Ž—Žȱ˜ȱ‘’œȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽœǯ

B

Esposito Š›žŽœȱ‘Žȱdistrict court should have determined his correct overall punishment and then conformed the sentences on the individual counts to achieve that total. He relies on the text of ǯǯǯ ǯȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǰȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱœŠŽœȱ’—ȱrelevant part:

(b) … the court shall determine the total punishment and shall impose that total punishment on ŽŠŒ‘ȱœžŒ‘ȱŒ˜ž—ǰȱŽ¡ŒŽ™ȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱŽ¡Ž—ȱ˜‘Ž› ’œŽȱ ›Žšž’›Žȱ‹¢ȱ•Š ǯ …

(d) ȱ ‘Žȱ œŽ—Ž—ŒŽȱ ’–™˜œŽȱ ˜—ȱ ‘Žȱ Œ˜ž—ȱ ŒŠ››¢’—ȱ ‘Žȱ‘’‘ŽœȱœŠž˜›¢ȱ–Š¡’–ž–ȱ’œȱ•Žœœȱ‘Š—ȱ‘Žȱ total punishment, then the sentence imposed on one or more of the other counts shall run con- œŽŒž’ŸŽ•¢ǰȱ ‹žȱ ˜—•¢ȱ ˜ȱ ‘Žȱ Ž¡Ž—ȱ —ŽŒŽœœŠ›¢ȱ ˜ȱ produce a combined sentence equal to the total 6 No. 20-1124

punishment. In all other respects, sentences on Š••ȱŒ˜ž—œȱœ‘Š••ȱ›ž—ȱŒ˜—Œž››Ž—•¢ǰȱŽ¡ŒŽ™ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ exŽ—ȱ˜‘Ž› ’œŽȱ›Žšž’›Žȱ‹¢ȱ•Š ǯ Esposito also cites United States v. De la TorreǰȱřŘŝȱǯřȱŜŖśȱ (7th Cir. 2003), ’—ȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱ‘Ž ŽŽ—Š—ȱ ŠœȱŒ˜—Ÿ’ŒŽȱ˜ȱœŽŸȬ Ž›Š•ȱ ›žȱ Š—ȱ –˜—Ž¢ȱ •Šž—Ž›’—ȱ Œ˜ž—œǯȱ I—’’Š••¢, a ŗśŗ-month sentence Šœȱ’–™˜œŽȱfor the ›žȱŒ˜—œ™’›ŠŒ¢ȱŠ—ȱ –˜—Ž¢ȱ•Šž—Ž›’—ȱŒ˜ž—œǰȱŠ•˜—ȱ ’‘ȱa 60-month concurrent sentence for the distribution ˜ȱ –Š›’“žŠ—Š count. Id. at 607. Due to Apprendi v. New Jersey, śřŖȱǯǯȱŚŜŜȱǻŘŖŖŖǼǰȱ‘Žȱ–Š¡’Ȭ mum sentence for the ›žȱŒ˜—œ™’›ŠŒ¢ȱŒ˜ž—œȱ‹ŽŒŠ–Žȱ˜—•¢ȱŜŖȱ mo—‘œǯȱ‘ŽȱŽŽ—Š—ȱ™Ž’’˜—Žȱ˜ȱŒ‘Š—Žȱ‘ŽȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽǰȱŠ›Ȭ ž’—ȱ ‘Šȱ ‹ŽŒŠžœŽȱ ‘Žȱ ŗśŗ-month sentence Šœȱ ‹ŠœŽȱ ˜—ȱ Šȱ Œ›’–Žȱ‘Šȱ—˜ ȱ‘Šȱa –žŒ‘ȱ•˜ Ž›ȱœŠž˜›¢ȱ–Š¡’–ž–ǰȱ’ȱ Šœȱ ’–™›˜™Ž›ȱ ˜ȱ žœŽȱ ‘Žȱ ˜‘Ž›ȱ Œ˜ž—œǰȱ ’‘ȱ •˜ Ž›ȱ Guidelines ›Š—Žœǰȱ ˜ȱ ŠŒ‘’ŽŸŽȱ Šȱ ŗśŗ-month sentence. Id. at 607–08. The Œ˜ž›ȱ Š›ŽŽȱ Š—ȱ ›ŽžŒŽȱ the defendant’s sentence to 71 –˜—‘œȱ˜—ȱ‘Žȱ–˜—Ž¢ȱ•Šž—Ž›’—ȱŒ˜ž—s and 60 months on ‘Žȱ ›žȱ Œ˜ž—œǰȱ ˜ȱ ‹Žȱ œŽ›ŸŽȱ Œ˜—Œž››Ž—•¢ǯȱ Id. ‘Žȱ ˜ŸŽ›—Ȭ ment appealed.

This court reversed the district court in De la Torre. We explained that the purpose of the Guidelines is to determine the ȃ˜Š•ȱ ™ž—’œ‘–Ž—Ȅȱ Š™™›˜™›’ŠŽȱ ˜›ȱ Š—ȱ ˜Ž—Ž›ǯȱ Id. 609–11. ‘ŽȱœŠž˜›¢ȱ–Š¡’–ž–ȱ‘Šœȱ—˜ȱ‹ŽŠ›’—ȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŒŠ•Œž•Š’˜—ȱ˜ȱ the Gž’Ž•’—Žœȱ›Š—Žȱ˜›ȱ˜Š•ȱ™ž—’œ‘–Ž—ǯȱId. This holds true even in cases like De la Torre, ‘Ž›Žȱ‘at ›Š—Žȱ’œȱ‹ŠœŽȱ˜—ȱŠ—ȱ offense ’‘ȱŠȱ–žŒ‘ȱ•˜ Ž›ȱœŠž˜›¢ȱ–Š¡’–ž–ǯȱId. Of course, ‘ŽȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽȱ˜›ȱŠ—¢ȱ’—’Ÿ’žŠ•ȱŒ˜ž—ȱŒŠ——˜ȱŽ¡ŒŽŽȱ‘ŽȱœŠȬ ž˜›¢ȱ–Š¡’–ž–ȱ˜›ȱ‘ŠȱŒ˜ž—ǰȱ‹žȱŠœȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǻǼȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ ž’ŽȬ lines explains, the sentences for other counts can be set, con- œŽŒž’ŸŽ•¢ȱŠœȱ—ŽŒŽœœŠ›¢ǰȱ˜ȱŠŒ‘’ŽŸŽȱ‘Žȱ˜Š•ȱ™ž—’œ‘–Ž—ǯȱ Id.

No. 20-1124 7

See also United States v. Griffith, ŞśȱǯřȱŘŞŚȱǻŝ‘ȱ’›ǯȱŗşşŜǼ (con- ŒŽ›—’—ȱthe same issue as in De la Torre).

Esposito’s Š›ž–Ž—ȱ here is technical, and it imports a –Ž‘˜˜•˜¢ȱ that the Guidelines do not require. If, before Ž•Ÿ’—ȱ’—˜ȱ’–™˜œ’—ȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽœȱcount ‹¢ count, the district court had stated ‘Šȱ’ȱ‘˜ž‘ȱ‘ŽȱŒ˜››ŽŒȱ˜Š•ȱ™ž—’œ‘–Ž—ȱ Šœȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ŽŠ›œ—rather than merŽ•¢ȱ œŠ¢’—ȱ ‘Šȱ ‘Žȱ Œ˜››ŽŒȱ total ™ž—’œ‘–Ž—ȱ ŠœȱŠȱŽȱŠŒ˜ȱ•’ŽȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽ—then, per Esposito , the district Œ˜ž›ȱ ˜ž•ȱ—˜ȱ‘ŠŸŽȱŽ››ŽǯȱAfter its sen- Ž—Œ’—ȱ ›Ž–Š›”œǰȱ the district court imposed sentences count ‹¢ Œ˜ž—ȱŠ—ȱ—˜Žȱ‘Šȱ ‘Žȱ ˜Š•ȱ Šœȱ ŘŖŖȱ ¢ŽŠ›œǯ To the defendant , ‘’œȱœžŽœœȱ‘ŽȱŒ˜ž›ȱ’ȱ—˜ȱŒ˜–Žȱž™ȱ ’‘ȱ‘ŽȱŘŖŖ- ¢ŽŠ›ȱ—ž–‹Ž›ȱ’›œȱŠ—ȱ‘Ž—ȱœŽȱ‘ŽȱŒ˜ž—-‹¢-count sentences, ‹žȱ ’ȱ ‘Žȱ ˜™™˜œ’Žǰȱ œŽ’—ȱ ‘Žȱ Œ˜ž—-‹¢-count sentences and then Š’—ȱ‘Ž–ȱž™ȱ˜ȱ˜Š•ȱŘŖŖȱ¢ŽŠ›œǯȱ The ’’Œž•¢ȱ ’‘ Esposito’s Š›ž–Ž—ȱ’œȱ‘Š before im-

™˜œ’— sentence, the ’œ›’ŒȱŒ˜ž›ȱŽŽŒ’ŸŽ•¢ȱdetermined that Esposito’s total punishment should be life imprisonment. The Œ˜ž›ȂœȱœŽ—Ž—Œ’—ȱŒ˜––Ž—œȱŽŸ’—ŒŽȱ‘Šȱ’ȱ Šœȱ™›˜—˜ž—Œ’—ȱ a de facto term of life imprisonment before ™›˜—˜ž—Œ’—ȱ prison terms on each count.

The district court Ž¡™›Žœœ•¢ȱ ›Ž“ŽŒŽȱ ‘Žȱ ŽŽ—Š—Ȃœȱ request to set his imprisonment based on his 28-¢ŽŠ›ȱlife ex- ™ŽŒŠ—Œ¢ǰȱ›˜–ȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱ ŽȱŒŠ—ȱŽžŒŽȱthat ‘ŽȱŒ˜ž›ȱ ŠœȱŒ˜—Ȭ Ž–™•Š’—ȱŠȱ•˜—Ž›ȱsentence than that. The district Œ˜ž›ȱ Šœȱ also alert to this court’s directive ˜ȱ‹Žȱ‘˜ž‘ž•ȱ ‘Ž—ȱ’–Ȭ ™˜œ’—ȱ •’Žȱ œŽ—Ž—ŒŽœȱ ‘Ž—ȱ ‘Žȱ œŠžŽœȱ ˜ȱ —˜ȱ ™›˜Ÿ’Žȱ ˜›ȱ them. Still, the district court concluded that the defendant’s Œ›’–ŽœȱŠŠ’—œȱ‘’œȱŸ’Œ’–—‹˜—ŠŽǰȱž›’—Š’˜—ǰȱ‹ŽŠ’—ǰȱ›Š™Žǰȱ ›Š™Žȱ ’‘ȱ ˜‹“ŽŒœ— Ž›Žȱ œ˜ȱ ‘˜››’’Œȱ Šœȱ —˜ȱ ˜ȱ ‹Žȱ –’—’–’£Ž, 8 No. 20-1124

and that Esposito’s crimes did —˜ȱ Š››Š—ȱŠȱshorter sentence equal to his •’ŽȱŽ¡™ŽŒŠ—Œ¢ Šȱ‘Žȱ’–Žȱ˜ȱœŽ—Ž—Œ’—.

The district court further œžŽœŽȱ that it Šœȱ —˜ȱ Œ˜—Ȭ ŒŽ›—ŽȱŠ‹˜žȱ‘ŽȱŽŽŒȱŠȱ•Ž—‘¢ȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽȱ–Š¢ȱ‘ŠŸŽȱ˜—ȱ˜‘Ž›ȱ ŽŽ—Š—œȱ Œ˜—Ž–™•Š’—ȱ ™•ŽŠ’—ȱ ž’•¢, and the court stated ž—Žšž’Ÿ˜ŒŠ••¢ȱ‘Šȱœ™˜œ’˜ȱŒŠ—ȱnever be around chil- ›Ž—ȱ ŠŠ’—. So Žȱ ŒŠ—ȱ Œ˜—Œ•žŽȱ ‘Šȱ the court meant to impose ‘Šȱ’œ ŽŽŒ’ŸŽ•¢ȱŠ life sentence. Indeed, at oral ar- ž–Ž—ȱ‹Ž˜›Žȱžœǰȱ‘ŽȱŽŽ—œŽȱŠ›ŽŽȱ ‘Šȱ ‘Žȱ ’œ›’Œȱ Œ˜ž›ȱ made it clear that ’ȱ ’œ‘Žȱ˜ȱ’–™˜œŽȱŠȱŽȱŠŒ˜ȱ•’ŽȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽǯ 1 BŽŒŠžœŽȱ‘Žȱ‘’‘ŽœȱœŠž˜›¢ȱ–Š¡’–ž–ȱ Šœȱ•Žœœȱ‘Š—ȱ•’Žȱ in prison, the districȱ Œ˜ž›ǰȱ ˜••˜ ’—ȱ ȗȱ ś ŗǯŘǻǼǰȱ ’–™˜œŽȱ Œ˜—œŽŒž’ŸŽȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽœȱŠœȱ—ŽŒŽœœŠ›¢ȱ˜ȱŠŒ‘’ŽŸŽȱŠ—ȱŽŽŒ’ŸŽȱ•’Žȱ sentence. So, the district court did not Œ˜––’ȱŠ—¢ȱŽ››˜›ȱ‘Ž›Žǯ Esposito ˜ž•ȱ‘ŠŸŽȱ‘Žȱ’œ›’ŒȱŒ˜ž›ȱŠppl¢ȱŠȱ›’’ǰȱ ˜-

step sequence that neither 18 U.S.C. ȗȱřśśřǻŠǼȱ—˜›ȱ‘ŽȱŽ—Ž—ŒȬ ’—ȱ ž’Ž•’—Žœȱ ›Žšž’›Žǯ The text of § ś ŗǯŘ(b) provides that the court shall determine the total punishment ȃŠ—Ȅȱ shall impose that total punishment on each such count. That provision does not œŠ¢ȱ“and thenȄ ˜›ȱŽ¡™•’Œ’•¢ȱœŽȱ˜žȱ‘Žȱcalculative process the defendant contends. Rather, § ś ŗǯŘ(b) Šœȱ Žœ’—Žȱ˜ȱŠ›ŽœœȱŠȱcircumstance different than here. This case fits better ž—Ž›ȱȗȱś ŗǯŘǻǼǰȱŠœȱ‘ŽȱŽŽ—Š—ȱ™›ŽœŽ—Žȱ ’‘ȱ —˜ȱ ™›’˜›ȱ Œ›’–’—Š•ȱ ‘’œ˜›¢ǰȱ so ’‘˜ut Š—¢ȱ œ’—•Žȱ count Ž¡™›Žœœ•¢ȱ ™›˜Ÿ’’—ȱ ˜›ȱ •’Žȱ ’–™›’œ˜—–Ž—ǰȱ ‘Žȱ Œ˜ž›ȱ –ŽŽȱ out a term of de facto life imprisonment ‹¢ȱ–ŽŠ—œȱ˜ȱthe consecutive and concurrent sentences imposed here. 2

1 ›Š•ȱ›ument at ŝDZśŖ. 2 It also ‹ŽŠ›œȱ—˜’—ȱ‘Šȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŽŒ’œ’˜—ȱ˜—ȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱœ™˜œ’˜ȱ›Ž•’ŽœǰȱDe la Torreǰȱ ‘Žȱ Ž—Ž—Œ’—ȱ ž’Ž•’—Žœȱ ‘Šȱ ˜ȱ ‹Žȱ ’ŸŽ—ȱ –žŒ‘ȱ –˜›Žȱ Ž’‘ȱ

No. 20-1124 9

III

We conclude that the district court did not err ‘Ž—ȱim- ™˜œ’—ȱœ™˜œ’˜ȂœȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽœǰȱœ˜ȱ ŽȱAFFIRM.

than here. 327 F.3d at 609, 611. De la Torre predated United States v. Booker, śŚřȱǯǯȱŘŘŖȱǻŘŖŖśǼǰȱ ‘’Œ‘ȱœ›žŒ”ȱ˜ —ȱ‘Žȱ™›ovision of the federal sen- Ž—Œ’—ȱœŠžŽ that required sentences to Š••ȱ ’‘’—ȱ‘ŽȱŽ—Ž—Œ’—ȱ ž’ŽȬ •’—Žœȱ›Š—ŽǰȱŠ•˜—ȱ ’‘ȱ‘Žȱ™›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—ȱ‘ŠȱŽ™›’ŸŽȱfederal appeals courts ˜ȱ‘Žȱ™˜ Ž›ȱ˜ȱ›ŽŸ’Ž ȱœŽ—Ž—ŒŽœȱ’–™˜œŽȱ˜žœ’Žȱ‘Žȱ›Š—ŽǯȱIdǯȱŠȱŘŚśǯ