Patrick Craig Harrison pleaded guilty in 2024 to possession of child pornography in violation of federal law. The probation office prepared a presentence report detailing his financial status, noting a net worth of roughly $5,200 and monthly retirement income of $153, but also suggesting he could work during imprisonment or supervised release. The district court sentenced Harrison to 70 months of imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release, and imposed various financial penalties including a $5,000 Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act special assessment. Harrison did not object to any of these sentencing components at the time of sentencing before appealing the judgment.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed Harrison's challenges for plain error because he failed to preserve the issues at the district court level. First, regarding the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act assessment, the court explained that 18 U.S.C. § 3014 mandates a $5,000 assessment for non-indigent defendants convicted of child exploitation offenses. The burden rests on the defendant to prove indigency. The court found no plain error because the district court could infer non-indigency from the presentence report, which detailed Harrison's financial position and potential for future earnings. The court noted that the statute allows defendants twenty years to pay the assessment, meaning the court need not rely solely on current ability to pay. Second, regarding the five-year supervised release term, the court held that the sentence was substantively reasonable because it was the statutory mandatory minimum for the offense. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k), the term of supervised release for this crime is 'any term of years not less than 5, or life.' Consequently, a five-year term is by definition reasonable. The court also found the sentence procedurally reasonable, noting that the district court adequately explained the sentence by stating the statute required a minimum of five years, which obviated the need for an extensive explanation.
This decision reinforces the strict application of the mandatory $5,000 JVTA assessment in child exploitation cases, placing a heavy burden on defendants to affirmatively prove indigency rather than assuming the court will find it. It also confirms that statutory mandatory minimums for supervised release are immune to substantive reasonableness challenges, limiting the ability of defendants to argue that such terms are too long. The case is remanded to the district court for enforcement of the sentence as affirmed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download