United States v. Corey Victor Bevins
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2547
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2013–2014 law enforcement found computers and storage media at Corey Bevins’s home containing videos and images of him sexually abusing a known minor (M.B.), plus many other child‑pornography files; Bevins admitted recording and downloading such material.
- A superseding indictment charged nine counts (production, attempted production, receipt, possession); Bevins pled guilty to one production count, one receipt count, and one possession count; plea admitted additional relevant conduct (two additional productions with same victim).
- The PSR applied multiple enhancements (sadistic/masochistic content, pattern of activity, repeat and dangerous sex offender, and grouping adjustments), producing a Guidelines range that effectively reached the statutory combined maximum of 720 months (life under the Guidelines capped at 720 months by statute).
- Bevins objected to several enhancements and sought a downward variance (proposed 180 months); the government supported a below‑Guidelines sentence of 360 months.
- The district court overruled Bevins’s objections, varied downward from the advisory range, and imposed consecutive terms totaling 300 months (15 yrs on production, 5 yrs on receipt, 5 yrs on possession).
- Bevins appealed, arguing procedural error in Guidelines calculation, inadequate § 3553(a) explanation, and substantive unreasonableness; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guidelines calculation (overall) | Some enhancements were improper and inflated range | PSR enhancements were supported by conduct; production count controlled grouping | No procedural error; combined offense level and range were correctly calculated |
| §4B1.5(b)(1) repeat and dangerous enhancement | §4B1.5 should require prior convictions; enhancement improper without prior convictions | Application Note defines pattern by multiple occasions, conviction not required | Held that §4B1.5 applies based on multiple occasions without prior conviction; enhancement proper |
| §2G2.1(b)(4) sadistic/masochistic enhancement | Images did not meet scope for sadistic/masochistic depiction | Videos showed attempted/actual penetration despite victim resistance | Enhancement warranted; videos fall within provision’s scope |
| Grouping under §3D1.2 / §3D1.4 adjustment | Multiple production acts with same victim should group as substantially same harm | Each production inflicted a separate, distinct harm; not "substantially the same" | Adjustment for multiple counts proper; counts not grouped |
| Record adequacy of §3553(a) explanation | District court’s brief explanation was inadequate for meaningful review | Court considered PSR, read submissions, heard arguments, and varied downward; explanation sufficient | No reversible plain error; brief explanation adequate given record and materials |
| Substantive reasonableness | 300‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable | District court imposed a significant downward variance (420 months less than Guideline) and considered §3553(a) factors | Sentence not substantively unreasonable; affirmed under deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for procedural and substantive review of sentences)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requirement that courts adequately explain chosen sentence)
- United States v. Godsey, 690 F.3d 906 (8th Cir. 2012) (Application Notes binding absent clear error; pattern defined without conviction requirement)
- United States v. Diaz, 368 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2004) (sadistic/masochistic enhancement includes adult intercourse or oral sex with a minor)
- United States v. Kiel, 454 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2006) (separate productions on different occasions inflict distinct harms for grouping analysis)
- United States v. Chavarria‑Ortiz, 828 F.3d 668 (8th Cir. 2016) (plain‑error review may apply to unpreserved challenges to adequacy of explanation)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (deferential standard and rarity of reversing for substantive unreasonableness)