United States v. Adam Hammond, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22354

Hammond pleaded guilty to enticement of a minor for prohibited sexual activity and enticement to produce a visual depiction under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and § 2251(a)/(e).
District court sentenced him to two concurrent 240-month terms with 15 years' supervised release.
Guidelines enhancement § 2G1.3(b)(5) applies when the victim is under 12, raising the offense level; the victim was eleven for much of the period.
Both parties agree Hammond believed the victim was thirteen, but § 2G1.3(b)(5) applies even if the defendant did not know the victim’s age.
Hammond argued for a downward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) due to his ignorance of the true age.
The district court denied a downward variance, and Hammond appeals the refusal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by denying a § 3553(a) downward variance.	Hammond argues ignorance of age distinguishes him from typical offenders and warrants a variance.	Hammond asserts the misapprehension of age should lessen the perceived seriousness and weigh in favor of leniency.	No abuse of discretion; court weighed factors and declined variance.

United States v. Brown, 627 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviews district court for abuse of discretion in variance decisions)
United States v. Acosta, 619 F.3d 956 (8th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard; 3553(a) factors guide sentence review)
United States v. Gonzalez, 573 F.3d 600 (8th Cir. 2009) (explains deferential review of sentencing decisions)
United States v. Bauer, 626 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2010) (district court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors; permissible emphasis on within-range factors)
United States v. Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court can emphasize certain § 3553(a) factors in sentencing)