The district court’s rejection of a plea agreement; FedRCrimP 11(c)(1)(C) & (c)(3)(A); Whether the district court exercised “sound judicial discretion” when rejecting the agreement; Deference to the government’s plea bargaining choices; Sentencing; Application of the five level enhancement under USSG § 4B1.5(b) for engaging “in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct”

The court affirmed the district court’s rejection of defendant-Vannelli’s plea agreement, concluding the district court “provided sound, case-specific reasons for rejecting” it. Further, the district court properly applied the § 4B1.5(b) enhancement in sentencing him. Vannelli pled guilty to four charges related to the sexual abuse of a minor. He entered into a plea agreement for a sentence of 180 months. The district court chose to review the PSR before deciding whether to accept the agreement. The PSR recommended a 324-to-405-month sentence, which included a five-level enhancement for engaging “‘in a “pattern of activity” involving prohibited sexual conduct.’” The district court rejected the agreement, finding the sentence inadequate. Vannelli did not withdraw his plea but proceeded to sentencing where the district court imposed a sentence of 252 months in prison followed by lifetime supervised release. He argued that it erred by rejecting his plea agreement and miscalculated his Guidelines range by improperly applying the § 4B1.5(b) enhancement. As to the former, he argued that the district court failed to exercise “sound judicial discretion” when rejecting the agreement. The court disagreed, finding that the district court “identified and explained plenty of sound and individualized reasons for” doing so. It “emphasized Vannelli’s knowledge of the victim’s age” (13) and the need to protect the public. Without “law enforcement’s prompt and effective intervention, Vannelli ‘would have traveled four to five hours, raped a 13 year old, taken her back to South Carolina,’ and continued the abuse.” A longer sentence was justified by the need to protect other minors. In addition, it determined “that the proposed sentence would contribute to nationwide sentencing disparities.” The court found Vannelli’s argument that the district court did not give adequate deference to the government’s plea bargain choices was “overstate[d],” noting that a “district court isn’t a mere rubber stamp for the parties’ agreed-upon sentence.” The court also upheld the sentencing enhancement. “Vannelli completed one offense on [9/25/22], when he solicited and received multiple nude photos from the minor victim. He then committed another offense on [9/27/22], when he traveled from South Carolina to Tennessee to have sex with her.” Further, the offenses occurred in different locations, and “differed in kind.”