United States v. Clogston, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24440

Appellant Shawn C. Clogston pled guilty to unlawful possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
ICE agents seized two computers from his home after a lead from Maine State Police; he volunteered a confession during searches at the local police station, which corroborated the computers' findings.
The district court calculated the Guidelines Sentencing Range (GSR) starting from base level 18 and applied multiple upward adjustments for child pornography characteristics and offense factors, then a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
Total offense level became 28 with Criminal History II, yielding a GSR of 87 to 108 months, and the court sentenced him to 90 months, near the bottom of the range.
The sentence was challenged on grounds that the guidelines are overly harsh, with insufficient differentiation among offenders and no consideration for lack of profit motive or lack of physical contact with minors.
The First Circuit reviews for procedural and substantive reasonableness, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred under Kimbrough by not departing from the GSR for policy disagreements.	Clogston argues the court failed to recognize authority to deviate from policy judgments in the guidelines.	USA contends the court properly understood its authority and did not abuse discretion in adhering to the GSR.	No Kimbrough error; court acknowledged authority and explained reasons for within-range sentence.
Procedural reasonableness: did the court adequately consider 3553(a) factors and potential disparities?	Clogston claims the court did not address 3553(a) factor disparities or compare similarly situated offenders.	USA notes explicit consideration of all factors; disparity need not be stated in detail for within-range sentences.	Procedurally reasonable; within-range sentence supported by record showing consideration of factors.
Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable given the nature of the offense and offender characteristics.	Clogston contends too much weight was given to certain factors (e.g., offense severity) and not enough to mitigating factors.	USA argues the district court properly weighed factors and chose a reasonable sentence within the range.	Substantively reasonable; district court did not abuse its discretion in balancing pros and cons.

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (district courts may vary within guidelines based on policy disagreements)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness as the touchstone of appellate review of sentencing)
Vargas-Dávila, 649 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2011) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework; within-range sentence reviewed for reasonableness)
Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (two-step review: procedural then substantive reasonableness)
Stone, 575 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2009) (avoid reading into sentencing record overly detailed responses to arguments)
Rodríguez, 527 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. 2008) (context for evaluating Kimbrough-based deviations)
DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2008) (record-based assessment of sentencing thought processes)
Dávila-González, 595 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2010) (consideration of 3553(a) factors; non-mechanical reasoning)
Fernández-Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (explanation need not be pedantically precise to be reasonable)
Madera-Ortiz, 637 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2011) (within-range sentences require less justification)
Carrasco-de-Jesús, 589 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (within-range sentence can be defended by plausible rationale)
Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc decision on sentencing discretion under guideline framework)