United States v. Corey Stinefast
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15877
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- In Aug. 2009 Corey Stinefast delivered a CD of child pornography to an FBI informant; subsequent search of his home uncovered over 190,000 images and hundreds of videos, including images of infant sexual molestation.
- Stinefast was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) for distribution of child pornography, pled guilty, and was sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment (well above the Guidelines range of 121–151 months).
- Before pleading guilty, Stinefast notified the government of intent to present mental-disease evidence; the government obtained a court-ordered exam by its expert, then Stinefast withdrew the defense and sought to limit dissemination of the government expert’s report.
- The district court substantially restricted distribution of the government expert’s report and stated it would not be used against Stinefast, but a dispute about possible reporting obligations under Illinois law generated references to statements Stinefast allegedly made during the exam.
- At sentencing Stinefast argued diminished capacity (low IQ, PTSD, depression, prior childhood sexual abuse) merited mitigation; the government emphasized prior sex-related convictions, recidivism, and the massive, disturbing collection to argue for an upward variance.
- The district court rejected diminished-capacity mitigation, explained that the magnitude and nature of the collection and Stinefast’s prior conduct justified specific deterrence, and imposed a 216‑month sentence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s sentencing comment about statements to government expert | Stinefast: prosecutor improperly referenced inadmissible/incriminating statements from his government-exam that violated Rule 12.2 and influenced sentence | Government: comment was to preserve the record and court had already been instructed not to consider the report | No plain error; comment not clearly improper and, in any event, court expressly said it did not consider those statements |
| District court’s consideration of diminished-capacity evidence | Stinefast: court failed to meaningfully address that his childhood abuse and mental disorders reduced culpability and warranted a lower sentence | Government: evidence did not link mental condition causally to the offense; argument was speculative/unsupported | No procedural error; court acknowledged the history but reasonably found no evidentiary link between disorders and offense, so argument was immaterial |
| Substantive reasonableness of above-Guidelines sentence | Stinefast: 216 months is unreasonable given his mitigation evidence | Government: aggravating factors — enormity and nature of collection, prior sex offenses, recidivism, need for specific deterrence — justify variance | Sentence was reasonable; district court considered § 3553(a) factors and relied on individualized, aggravating facts to justify variance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turner, 651 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2011) (plain-error review of unpreserved sentencing claims)
- United States v. Jones, 600 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2010) (standards for clearly improper prosecutorial remarks)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (1974) (ambiguous prosecutorial remarks should not be given their most damaging meaning)
- Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339 (1981) (presumption that judges disregard improper or inadmissible matters)
- United States v. Shukri, 207 F.3d 412 (7th Cir. 2000) (need evidence to show a judge relied on improper remarks)
- United States v. Chapman, 694 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2012) (district courts must address principal, nonfrivolous mitigation arguments)
- United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (omission to discuss immaterial dispute is harmless)
- United States v. Miranda, 505 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2007) (diminished-capacity mitigation and § 5K2.13 principles)
- United States v. Frazier, 979 F.2d 1227 (7th Cir. 1992) (causal link required between reduced mental capacity and offense)
- United States v. Portman, 599 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2010) (legal diminished capacity requires causal nexus)
- United States v. Beier, 490 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2007) (insufficient evidence of mental deficits linking to production/distribution of child pornography)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard and review of substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Taylor, 701 F.3d 1166 (7th Cir. 2012) (requirements for adequate statement of reasons for variance)
- United States v. Bradley, 675 F.3d 1021 (7th Cir. 2012) (magnitude of variance must be justified)
- United States v. Jackson, 547 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2008) (above-guidelines sentences more likely reasonable when based on individualized factors)