Sentencing Enhancements- Procedural Reasonableness

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Daniel Betty

Case No.: 24-2231

Officials: Easterbrook, Hamilton, and Maldonado, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sentencing Enhancements- Procedural Reasonableness

Betty pleaded guilty at a combined plea and sentencing hearing to two counts of sexual exploitation of a child, one count of enticement of a minor, and one count of receipt of child pornography. The district court adopted the presentence report’s total offense level of 43, criminal history category I, and advisory Guidelines range of life imprisonment, but imposed 264 months’ imprisonment. Betty appealed only his sentence. At age 27, Betty used Spot-a-Friend, a dating app marketed to teenagers, while listing his age as 17, to send sexually explicit messages to a 14-year-old victim, request sexually explicit images, later tell her he was “really 19,” drive nearly an hour to meet her, and “engage[] in vaginal sexual intercourse” with her. Betty challenged the grouping rules and pattern-of-activity enhancement as impermissible double counting, a two-level enhancement for a sexual act or sexual contact, victim-impact evidence and statements about other purported minors, and the adequacy of the district court’s discussion of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) mitigation. Reviewing the preserved double-counting argument de novo and unpreserved arguments for plain error, the appellate court held that double counting is generally permissible under the Guidelines, and any grouping error caused no prejudice because the required cross-reference would still produce a life Guidelines range. The court also held the conduct underlying Count 2 qualified as “sexual contact,” the district court did not plainly rely on inaccurate information, and its explanation adequately addressed the relevant § 3553(a) arguments, including the life range, psychological issues, and disparities. The judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Decided 08/12/26

Full Text