United States v. Black, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5089

Black pled guilty to two counts of possessing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)(B).
District court calculated a Guidelines range of 78–97 months and varied downward to 60 months’ imprisonment.
Black was also sentenced to lifetime supervised release with an internet-access prohibition unless approved by probation; the restriction was tied to his method of accessing material (e.g., Limewire).
PSR showed Black used Limewire to obtain child pornography; no party objected to PSR facts.
Black argued in sentencing that child-pornography guidelines are overinflated and that the court should consider other §3553(a) factors; the court acknowledged mental-health/history and lack of criminal history in balancing the sentence.
On appeal, Black preserved issues for plain-error review and challenged the district court’s handling of the guidelines, the reasoning, and the internet restriction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly considered the child-pornography guidelines issue.	Black (Black) asserts the guidelines are overinflated and should have been addressed.	Black contends the district court failed to consider or respond to the argument.	Plain-error not shown; no need to discuss further; district court implicitly considered it.
Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable under §3553(a).	Black argues the court gave undue weight to the offense and should have varied further downward.	Court had discretion to vary or not; disciplined by earlier downward variance.	No abuse of discretion; the court considered relevant factors and declined further downward variation.
Whether the internet-access restriction was properly imposed.	Black contends the restriction is overly broad or improperly explained.	Restriction tied to defendant’s active use of a retrieval device; not a total ban.	Not plain error; restriction reasonable and supported by record evidence.
Whether the district court adequately explained its reasoning.	Black argues insufficient explanation for rejecting his arguments.	Court need not respond to every argument; must show it considered relevant factors.	Court’s consideration of factors shown; explanation sufficient to satisfy appellate review.

United States v. Dace, 660 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2011) (procedural sentencing error review standard)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (requires reasonable factual explanation of sentence)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (Supreme Court 2007) (explains when a judge must respond to nonfrivolous arguments)
United States v. Gray, 533 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2008) (district courts discretionary in responding to arguments)
United States v. Nissen, 666 F.3d 486 (8th Cir. 2012) (review for reasonableness; factor awareness)
United States v. Werlein, 664 F.3d 1143 (8th Cir. 2011) (presumption of reasonableness within guidelines range)
United States v. Barron, 557 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 2009) (policy disagreement with guidelines does not compel downward variance)
United States v. Maulding, 627 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 2010) (policy disagreement with guidelines does not require variance)
United States v. Durham, 618 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 2010) (internet-restriction upheld when not total ban)
United States v. Phelps, 536 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard in sentencing)