United States v. Borromeo, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19837

In February 2009, J.A.B., age 15, reported rape by Borromeo, leader of her scout troop, who had lived with J.A.B.'s family in 2007.
Investigators found lascivious photos of J.A.B. and her 13-year-old sister and a pornographic video on Borromeo's devices; later, J.A.B. and sister identified broader abuse since late 2007.
Borromeo admitted the accusations and faced seven counts of child pornography offenses.
After Borromeo's arrest, his 12-year-old daughter O.M.B. reported six years of his sexual abuse including vaginal and anal sex, with her present during some assaults on J.A.B.
Borromeo pleaded guilty to one count of producing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); plea agreement suggested various sentencing ranges but was not binding on the district court.
The PSR applied upward adjustments for multiple victims and other factors, producing a recommended life sentence; the district court adopted the PSR, setting a Guidelines range of 360 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the sentence substantively reasonable under § 3553(a)?	Government argues within-guidelines sentence is reasonable.	Borromeo argues the court overweighted offense seriousness and undervalued mitigating factors.	Yes; sentence affirmed as reasonable.
Did the court properly weigh mitigating factors against offense severity?	Government maintains court properly weighed factors.	Borromeo contends mitigation outweighed.	No abuse; discretion within bounds.
Did the court adequately reflect Borromeo's mitigating history and lack of distribution impact?	Government notes mitigating history considered; impact of distribution lessened severity.	Borromeo asserts more weight should be given to personal history and non-distribution.	Court adequately weighed factors; no reversal.
Was the district court correct in applying the Feemster framework for abuse-of-discretion review?	Government relies on Feemster to uphold district court discretion.	Borromeo argues misweighing under Feemster framework.	Court did not abuse discretion; within permissible range.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (sentence within Guidelines presumptively reasonable on appeal)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (within-guidelines sentence presumed reasonable on appeal)
Feemster v. United States, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc; factors in § 3553(a) weighing; abuse-of-discretion standard)
Bridges v. United States, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2009) (defendant-specific determinations are within district court's discretion)