United States v. Allen Keefer
490 F. App'x 797
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Keefer pled guilty on Jan 30, 2009 to counts under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), 2252A(a)(2)(A), 2252A(a)(5)(B).
- Kefer was sentenced to 210 months, with a five-level enhancement for 600+ images under § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) due to 1,215 images in unallocated space.
- On remand, the government presented Agent Dobeck’s testimony that 1,062 images in unallocated space were viewed in full size, implying prior viewing.
- The district court again applied the enhancement; Keefer was resentenced to 210 months.
- Keefer appeals the enhancement, challenging whether it was properly applied and procedurally reasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 2G2.2 enhancement was properly applied | Keefer (Keefer) argues lack of knowledge of all images; no relevant conduct | Keefer asserts improvement inconsistencies and lack of knowledge | Enhancement upheld based on remand evidence of viewing at least 1,062 images. |
| Whether viewing images can constitute relevant conduct under state law at the time | Keefer contends state law did not criminalize viewing in January 2008 | Government contends conduct could be relevant under state law | Harmless error; Ohio law criminalized viewing, so conduct valid for enhancement. |
| Whether the government’s evidence establishes Keefer viewed the unallocated-space images | Keefer argues evidence insufficient to show viewing | Dobeck testimony and Keefer’s actions show viewing or intentional access | Evidence sufficient to show Keefer viewed the images. |
| Whether the district court erred in applying the enhancement on remand | Keefer claims misapplication or double-counting | Government demonstrates proper application with remand findings | No reversible error; enhancement properly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2009) (procedural reasonableness; abuse of discretion standard)
- United States v. Hunt, 487 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2007) (de novo review for guideline application; facts reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Kuchinski, 469 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2006) (addressed possession vs. viewing in unallocated space)
- United States v. Maken, 510 F.3d 654 (6th Cir. 2007) (relation of conduct to relevant conduct; state law considerations)
- United States v. Shafer, 199 F.3d 826 (6th Cir. 1999) (relevant conduct; potential incarceration under state law)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness and guideline application framework)