Court May Consider Good Time at Sentencing

US v. Fowler: Fowler was charged with four counts of producing child pornography and one count of possession, all arising from his abuse of two 10-year-old girls. He pleaded guilty to all five counts without a plea agreement and was facing a combined statutory maximum of 140 years in prison. While the Guidelines recommended a life sentence, the Government argued for a sentence of 50 years, while Fowler argued for a sentence of 15 years (the mandatory minimum for the production counts). The district court agreed that the Government’s sentence was a “life equivalent” and not appropriate, but also rejected Fowler’s position. In the end, the district court imposed a sentence of 480 months (40 years), arriving at that number by considering how good time credits would potentially shorten it and result in Fowler’s release sometime around age 60.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Fowler’s sentence. Fowler argued that the district court erred by considering the impact of good time credits when determining the sentence. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, finding no error (under plain error review) in considering good time credits. Such considerations fell within the factors set forth in 18 USC §3553(a), were not relied upon as a “stand alone factor,” and were not used to enhance Fowler’s sentence, only reduce it. Because age at release from prison is a factor in recidivism, such considerations are proper and the court would have to take good time credits into consideration in such matters. The court also rejected Fowler’s argument that his sentence was substantively unreasonable, holding that “there was nothing remotely unreasonable” about it.