United States v. Aleo
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9750
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Aleo pleaded guilty to production, possession, and transporting/shipping child pornography and received 720 months consecutive, the statutory maximum.
- Guidelines calculated: base level 32, plus 4 for minor under 12, 2 for sexual act, 2 for relative/minor in custody, total level 38; groupings and 3D1.4 adjustments yielded guideline range 235-293 months.
- District court sentenced to 720 months, far above the top of the range, and imposed consecutive terms for Counts One, Two, and Three, plus five years of supervised release.
- Aleo argued the guideline calculation and factual basis (including absence of sexual touching) were improper; the court rejected these arguments in the proceeding.
- Aleo’s trial counsel Freeman was sanctioned $2,000 under the district court’s inherent power for filing a CVRA-related motion; that sanction is later reversed.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed Aleo’s sentence as substantively unreasonable and remanded for resentencing; it also reversed the sanction against Freeman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of the sentence | Aleo argues Rule 32(i)(3)(B) was violated and guidelines not properly calculated | Aleo contends the court ruled on the sexual-contact enhancement and recalculated range | Procedurally reasonable; district court properly ruled and calculated range as 38 |
| Substantive reasonableness of the variance | Aleo argues 720 months is excessive given comparable cases | Aleo argues the district court had compelling reasons for the variance | Sentence substantively unreasonable; remanded for resentencing with tailored justification |
| Remand to a different judge | Aleo seeks reassignment due to prior remarks by the sentencing judge | Court remands for de novo resentencing; no merit found to preserve current judge | |
| Sanction of trial counsel Freeman | Freeman acted in good faith to address CVRA rights and due process | Court erred in sanctioning Freeman under inherent power, lacking bad-faith proof | Sanction reversed; inherent-power sanction improper; contempt rules applicable in criminal cases not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (outside-Guidelines sentencing must be clearly justified)
- Baker v. United States, 559 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing; proper calculation and consideration of §3553(a) factors)
- Poynter v. United States, 495 F.3d 349 (6th Cir. 2007) (need for compelling justification for large variance from Guidelines)
- Gawthrop v. United States, 310 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2002) (comparative disparities in sentencing for similar offenses)
- Vowell v. United States, 516 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (illustrates disparity concerns with maximum sentences)