United States v. Brian Annoreno, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7369

Background

Annoreno administered a child-pornography chat room (Kiddypics & Kiddyvids) and engaged in peer-to-peer sharing, trading explicit files for others' images; he used the alias Acidburn and communicated with a user Big_Daddy619 who cooperated with investigators and testified at sentencing.
Investigators discovered over 57 child-pornography files on a home computer, including seven in temporary files; majority recovered from unallocated space; Annoreno confessed and helped identify other users.
A co-defendant testified that he witnessed Annoreno molesting a child (≤1 year old) several times; this information informed the sentencing factors.
While in custody, Annoreno sought more child pornography through inmate networks, and he was assaulted by other inmates, leaving him nearly blind.
Annoreno pled guilty to three counts, with the plea agreement noting disputes about whether a video of him molesting a child existed; the statutory maximum was 50 years and the guidelines ranged up to life, but the district court imposed a 40-year aggregate sentence.
The district court adopted the presentence report’s guideline calculations, noting the advisory range would be life but capped by the 50-year statutory maximum, and proceeded to sentencing under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the guideline range was properly calculated and announced	United States	Annoreno contends errors in guideline calculations and absence of a clear advisory range	Procedural error not found; district court adopted PSR calculations and stated the advisory range (life capped at 50 years).
Whether diminished capacity and need for treatment were misused as aggravating factors	United States	Annoreno claims mental characteristics were improperly used to aggravate punishment	No abuse; court balanced aggravating and mitigating aspects and found reasonable consideration of diminished capacity and limited treatment prospects.
Whether use of rehabilitation considerations violated Tapia or related limits on prison terms for rehabilitation	United States	Court cannot lengthen imprisonment to promote rehabilitation	No violation; court noted rehabilitation potential was unlikely and did not base sentence on expectation of rehabilitation.
Whether the within-range sentence would create unwarranted disparities; whether 40 years is reasonable	Annoreno	Arguments for a shorter, disparity-free sentence	No procedural error; sentence within a framework recognizing risk and incapacitation; substantively reasonable given circumstances.
Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable given the defendant’s profile	United States	35-year-old defendant deserved different treatment given mitigators	Sentence affirmed as reasonable and consistent with incapacitation rationale.

Key Cases Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes procedural/amount of explanation standard for sentencing under §3553(a))
United States v. Jackson, 547 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2008) (procedural review for sentencing adequacy under Gall)
United States v. Willis, 300 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2002) (adoption of PSR findings by district court permissible)
United States v. Durham, 645 F.3d 883 (7th Cir. 2011) (diminished capacity vs. mitigating factor distinction)
Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011) (cannot impose/lengthen term to promote rehabilitation)
United States v. Craig, 703 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2012) (within-range sentencing and incapacitation considerations)
United States v. Lemke, 693 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2012) (within-guideline considerations and disparity discussions)
United States v. Ramirez-Fuentes, 703 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2013) (within-guideline presumptions and reasonableness review)
United States v. DeLeon, 603 F.3d 397 (7th Cir. 2010) (acceptance of responsibility and sentencing factors)
United States v. Durand, not cited (n/a) (placeholder)