U.S. v. Viren

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to maximum term of 600 months’ incarceration on three counts of sexual exploitation of minor, as well as one count of possession of child pornography, after defendant had entered into open plea agreement as to said charges, even though Dist. Ct. had previously rejected different plea agreement that called for maximum sentence of 360 months’ imprisonment. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. had improperly failed to explain why it rejected initial plea agreement, Dist. Ct.’s bare statement that it did not accept 360-month sentence cap was sufficient to provide defendant notice of reason for its rejection of plea agreement, especially where Dist. Ct. had previously warned defendant of said possibility that it might sentence defendant to longer sentence, but would allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. Moreover, while Dist. Ct. erred in increasing defendant’s criminal history from offense level II to offense level V, where defendant’s prior rape conviction did not qualify as “sex offense conviction,” any error was harmless, where defendant was subject to same maximum sentence under either offense level.