Filed: Sep. 08, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Defendant, Appellant.Circuit Judges.Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee. This is a single-issue sentencing appeal.Amendment. See U.S. Const. A, sentencing table (2013).individual counts, however, authorized a life sentence. United States v. Polk, 546 F.3d 74, 76 (1st Cir.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 13-1289
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
JOHN ALLEN WRIGHT,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Howard, Selya and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
Paul J. Garrity on brief for appellant.
John P. Kacavas, United States Attorney, and Seth R. Aframe,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
September 8, 2014
Per Curiam. This is a single-issue sentencing appeal.
The lone issue is whether the sentence imposed violates the Eighth
Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII. The genesis of the case
is straightforward. Defendant-appellant John Allen Wright pleaded
guilty to five counts of sexually exploiting children, see 18
U.S.C. § 2251(a), and one count of possessing child pornography,
see id. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). The guideline sentencing table for the
six counts called for life imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guideline
Manual ch. 5, pt. A, sentencing table (2013). None of the
individual counts, however, authorized a life sentence. Faced with
this fact, the court sentenced the defendant to what was
effectively a life sentence, imposing six separate sentences (each
at the statutory maximum) and running them consecutively. These
consecutive sentences added up to a 160-year period of immurement.
This timely appeal followed.
The defendant raises his solitary Eighth Amendment claim
for the first time on appeal, so our review is for plain error. See
United States v. Duarte, 246 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir. 2001). We
discern no hint of error, plain or otherwise.
We need not tarry. A criminal sentence can violate the
Eighth Amendment only if it is grossly disproportionate to the
gravity of the crimes of conviction. See Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S.
277, 288 (1983); United States v. Polk,
546 F.3d 74, 76 (1st Cir.
-2-
2008). This is a high bar, rarely surmounted. See Polk, 546 F.3d
at 76. The case at hand does not come close.
The defendant committed crimes characterized by utter
depravity. He took unfair advantage of a position of trust (a
school-bus driver), abused very young disabled children in hideous
ways, and recorded his reprehensible acts by means of hidden
cameras to ensure him of the ability to revisit his escapades for
his continued gratification. The district court sentenced the
defendant harshly, but it explained its rationale plausibly. That
sentence was not only an efficacious way of achieving parity with
the guideline sentencing table but also served to impose punishment
commensurate with the horrific nature of the crimes of conviction.
Consequently, the sentence imposed did not offend the Eighth
Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754, 789
(1st Cir. 1995) (upholding 660-year sentence for racketeering,
money laundering, and related offenses against Eighth Amendment
challenge).
We need go no further. The defendant's sentence is
summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
-3-
