United States v. Bistline
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 387
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Bistline pled guilty to knowingly possessing 305 images and 56 videos of child pornography on his computer, substantially many depicting 8- to 10-year-old girls being raped.
- The guideline range for his offense under § 2G2.2 was 63 to 78 months’ imprisonment.
- The district court sentenced him to one night in the courthouse lockup plus 10 years’ supervised release, effectively non-custodial.
- The district court rejected § 2G2.2 as “seriously flawed” and discounted its policy implications due to congressional involvement in amendments.
- The government argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable and that the court failed to properly apply § 3553(a) factors.
- The Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for imposition of a sentence within the guidelines or a justified variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could reject § 2G2.2 as seriously flawed | Bistline suggests § 2G2.2 reflects congressional policy and must be applied | Bistline contends district court can reject guideline on policy grounds | No; court must adequately justify any rejection of § 2G2.2 and address Congress's role. |
| Whether the sentence reflects the § 3553(a) factors | Bistline argues the sentence does not reflect offense seriousness and individual circumstances | United States contends the sentence accounted for risk and deterrence | Sentence is substantively unreasonable and not supported by § 3553(a) factors. |
| Whether age, health, and caregiver status can justify a non-guidelines sentence | Court relied on these factors to mitigate; reflects policy disfavorable to strict guidelines | These factors should be considered but do not override seriousness of offense | These factors cannot justify the non-custodial sentence given the offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (guidelines advisory; start point for reasonableness)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (policy grounds may support disagreement with guidelines; Congress may set policies)
- Christman v. United States, 607 F.3d 1110 (6th Cir.2010) (age/physical condition disfavored factors; consider policy statements)
- Stall v. United States, 581 F.3d 276 (6th Cir.2009) (prosecutorial presentation affects reasonableness; contrast factual record)
- McNerney v. United States, 636 F.3d 772 (6th Cir.2011) (court scrutinizes district court's disagreement with § 2G2.2)
- Dorvee v. United States, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir.2010) (Congressional amendments and sentencing policy considerations)
- Pugh v. United States, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir.2008) (empirical data versus congressional directives in guideline formation)
- Morace v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340 (4th Cir.2010) (Congressional stance on child-pornography penalties)