296 F.R.D. 131
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- CR pled guilty to distribution of child pornography obtained via computer under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).
- Statutory minimum five-year sentence was found unconstitutional as applied; a 30-month treatment sentence followed by long-term supervised release was previously imposed.
- Court of Appeals directed that the sentence be increased to conform with the statutory minimum, yielding a 60-month minimum under § 2252(b)(1).
- Probation calculated an offense level of 35, CH I, with a guideline range of 168–210 months, including multiple enhancements and a deduction for timely acceptance of responsibility.
- CR objected to a 5-point pattern-of-abuse enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(5); the court found two additional admitted incidents with minors (besides the half-sister) qualify, making the enhancement appropriate.
- The court imposed a 60-month term to be followed by five years of supervised release, with extensive special conditions addressing sex offenses, internet monitoring, prohibitions on pornography, and other risk-management measures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pattern of sexual abuse enhancement is appropriate. | Government contends two additional incidents qualify the pattern. | CR argues only one qualifying episode exists with the half-sister. | Enhancement is appropriate. |
| Whether the statutory minimum applies after remand and the 60-month minimum must be imposed. | Statutory minimum applies as required by law. | Minimum may be unconstitutional as applied. | Statutory minimum applies; 60 months required. |
| Whether lifetime supervised release should be imposed. | Govt. policy statements advocate lifetime release. | Lifetime release is too severe and duplicative. | Lifetime supervised release rejected; five-year term imposed. |
| Whether the supervised-release conditions are appropriate and tailored. | Conditions deemed appropriately tailored and enforceable. | ||
| Whether the sentence is supported by the § 3553(a) factors. | Court weighed § 3553(a); sentence deemed sufficient but not greater than necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- In United States v. Malenya, 736 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (discusses restrictions on sex offender residence and related considerations)
- United States v. Reingold, 731 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2013) (order/remand for resentencing; remanding and addressing minimum sentence)