UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DANIEL DALE BARTON, SR. - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DANIEL DALE BARTON, SR.

Posted by: Azya Thornton on May 6, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Michael J. Ledenko, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Akron, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Jennifer J. King, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Michael J. Ledenko, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Akron, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Jennifer J. King, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): MOORE, GIBBONS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown

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 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.

Attachments: