United States v. Bleau
930 F.3d 35
| 2d Cir. | 2019Background
- Defendant Keith Bleau pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography and was sentenced to 78 months’ imprisonment and 15 years’ supervised release.
- District Court applied a four‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4) (sadistic/violent material) based on videos showing a 12–14 year‑old performing sex acts with sex toys that the court found objectively degrading and causing mental harm; the court denied a two‑level reduction under § 2G2.2(b)(1).
- Bleau’s computer had peer‑to‑peer file‑sharing software; law enforcement remotely accessed and downloaded the illicit images.
- On appeal Bleau challenged (1) denial of the § 2G2.2(b)(1) reduction, (2) application of the § 2G2.2(b)(4) enhancement, (3) substantive and procedural reasonableness of his sentence, and (4) a supervised‑release condition barring direct contact with minors without Probation Office approval.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the Guidelines calculation and the sentence’s reasonableness but remanded solely for further consideration (or explanation) of the special supervised‑release condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 2G2.2(b)(1) two‑level reduction (receipt‑only) | Government: peer‑to‑peer software enabled distribution; reduction inapplicable when conduct is related to transfer | Bleau: he only received; did not intend to traffic or distribute | Held: Reduction unavailable where peer‑to‑peer setup enabled remote access/downloads—conduct was related to distribution. |
| Applicability of § 2G2.2(b)(4) four‑level sadistic/violent enhancement | Government: images showed degrading conduct causing pain/mental suffering, triggering enhancement | Bleau: depicted mental degradation only, not physical pain; enhancement should not apply | Held: Enhancement may be based on objective depiction of mental cruelty; applied here because videos objectively showed mental degradation. |
| Substantive reasonableness of 78‑month sentence | Government: below‑Guidelines variance still reasonable given § 3553(a) factors and public protection concerns | Bleau: court overstated social‑isolation risk; sentence excessive | Held: 78‑month sentence (substantial variance) was substantively reasonable. |
| Special condition barring direct contact with minors without probation approval | Government: condition reasonable to protect public and supervise risk | Bleau: condition not shown necessary or narrowly tailored; no prior inappropriate contact with minors | Held: Imposition was plain error for lack of individualized justification; remand for the district court to explain or modify the condition. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Freeman, 578 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2009) (defines “sadistic” and explains objective test for § 2G2.2(b)(4))
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (discusses district court discretion and cautions regarding § 2G2.2 sentencing)
- Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (2011) (Sentencing—district courts’ discretion and consideration of post‑sentencing rehabilitation)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (standard for reviewing factual findings for clear error)
- United States v. Betts, 886 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2018) (individualized assessment required before imposing special supervised‑release conditions)