United States v. Cory Buckholz, 686 F. App'x 358

Background

In Aug. 2014, Cory Buckholz (age 25) was investigated after an undercover agent downloaded eight child‑pornography videos from his peer‑to‑peer shared folder; forensic review showed 600+ images of prepubescent girls. He pleaded guilty to knowingly receiving and distributing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1).
PSR calculated offense level 34 and Criminal History Category II, yielding a Guidelines range of 168–210 months; Buckholz argued for CHC I (151–188 months) and sought a downward variance to 60 months.
At sentencing the district court found offense level 34, departed downward to CHC I based on overrepresentation of criminal history, and imposed 151 months (bottom of adjusted range), plus five years supervised release.
Buckholz appealed, arguing (1) procedural error because the district court failed to recognize it could vary below §2G2.2 on policy grounds, and (2) substantive unreasonableness because the court did not adequately weigh his mitigation and should have imposed a large downward variance.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, examined the sentencing transcript for indications the district court understood its authority to vary on policy grounds, and evaluated whether the within‑Guidelines sentence was substantively reasonable.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court procedurally erred by not recognizing its authority to vary from §2G2.2 on policy grounds	Buckholz: court failed to acknowledge it could categorically reject/var[y] from the child‑pornography Guideline on policy grounds	Government/District Ct.: court acknowledged Guidelines are advisory, heard policy argument, and implicitly considered but declined to vary	No error — record indicates court knew it could vary and considered the policy argument before declining to reject the Guideline
Whether the imposed 151‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Buckholz: sentence is greater than necessary; court failed to give adequate weight to youth, addiction recovery, lack of significant criminal history, and mitigation	Court: credited mitigation (reduced CHC), but emphasized seriousness of distribution, ongoing harm to victims, and Buckholz’s active participation in sharing images	Sentence is substantively reasonable — within adjusted Guidelines and court reasonably weighed §3553(a) factors
Whether sentencing disparity concerns required a larger variance	Buckholz: other below‑Guidelines sentences exist in circuit, so a large variance was appropriate to avoid disparity	Court: §3553(a)(6) compares similar defendants; some defendants get lower, some much higher sentences — disparity argument didn’t make variance required here	No relief — district court permissibly considered and rejected a large variance to avoid creating other disparities

Key Cases Cited

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness standard for sentencing review)
United States v. Kamper, 748 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2014) (review for procedural error and district court’s appreciation of sentencing discretion)
United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2012) (district court may disagree with §2G2.2 on policy grounds)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (presumption that within‑Guidelines sentence is reasonable)
United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2009) (no need for explicit on‑the‑record recognition of policy‑variance authority where record shows understanding)
United States v. Maye, 582 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2009) (remand when record suggests court may have felt constrained by Guidelines)
United States v. Houston, 813 F.3d 282 (6th Cir. 2016) (district court not required to weigh mitigating arguments exactly as defendant requests)