United States v. Daniel Barton, Sr.

── United States v. Daniel Barton, Sr. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0133p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 25-3364 │ v. │ │ DANIEL DALE BARTON, SR., │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown. No. 4:23-cr-00519-1—Christopher A. Boyko, District Judge. Argued: March 17, 2026 Decided and Filed: May 6, 2026 Before: MOORE, GIBBONS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Michael J. Ledenko, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Akron, Ohio, for Appellant. Jennifer J. King, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael J. Ledenko, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Akron, Ohio, for Appellant. Jennifer J. King, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee. _________________ OPINION _________________ PER CURIAM. After pleading guilty to a child-pornography offense and completing his custodial term, Daniel Dale Barton, Sr.’s term of supervision had an inauspicious start. He committed a new law violation, traveled outside the Northern District of Ohio without  No. 25-3364 United States v. Barton Page 2 permission, and was caught possessing an internet-connected tablet that he used to view adult pornography. At a hearing on these violations, the district court offered Barton an ultimatum. Either he could immediately accept a within-Guidelines six-month term of imprisonment, or continue on supervision—with a catch: if Barton committed a future violation, the district court would impose a statutory-maximum two-year term of imprisonment. Barton chose to remain on supervision, but shortly thereafter was caught possessing another internet-connected tablet. At the subsequent violation hearing, the district court made good on its promise to impose the statutory maximum. We hold that when a district court predetermines a supervisee’s revocation term of imprisonment at an earlier violation hearing, as the district court did here, the end result is a term of imprisonment that is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, we VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND In August 2017, Barton was charged with three child-pornography offenses in the Middle District of Florida. The following year, Barton pleaded guilty to a single count of receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2), (b)(1), and was sentenced to eighty-four months of imprisonment and a fifteen-year term of supervised release. Barton completed his custodial sentence and commenced his supervised-release term in January 2023. The Northern District of Ohio accepted the transfer of jurisdiction over Barton’s supervision in September 2023. The condit