United States v. Cory Reibel, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16254

Reibel pleaded guilty to two counts of producing child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and received concurrent sentences of 360 months, at the bottom of the Guidelines range but at the statutory maximum.
The offense involved photos of the girlfriend’s 3-year-old daughter and digital penetration; the victim described touching and being called “sexy.”
The presentence report noted a difficult childhood, lack of prior criminal history, stable employment, and victim-impact statements from D.P.
Guidelines calculations yielded an advisory range of 360 months to life, with concurrent sentences under § 5G1.2(c); the statutory maximum was 360 months.
At sentencing, the judge imposed concurrent 30-year sentences, rejecting a below-Guidelines sentence, and explained reasons under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Reibel appeals arguing the sentence is unreasonably harsh, improperly based on speculation about sex-offender recidivism, and that mitigating evidence should yield a lower sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether within-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable for a child-pornography case.	Reibel argues guidelines skew toward maximum; mitigating evidence rebuts presumptive reasonableness.	Reibel contends the scheme produces marginal deterrence and can overstate severity for less culpable offenders.	Within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable; no abuse of discretion found.
Whether guidelines lack empirical support and distort sentencing.	Maulding: guidelines were developed without empirical evidence and distort goals.	Beier et al.: district courts may consider various factors; guidelines need not be empirically perfect.	Guidelines not required to be empirically perfect; district court may rely on § 3553(a) factors.
Whether the district court relied on unfounded recidivism or deterrence assumptions.	Reibel claims the judge used unsupported views about sex-offender recidivism and victim harm.	Judge acknowledged open questions but cited age-related declines and provided a presumptively reasonable sentence; evidence not presented by Reibel was not relied upon.	Sentence upheld; court did not base it on unsupported speculation.
Whether the weighting of § 3553(a) factors was within the court’s discretion.	None specific beyond challenge to weight; argues weight overly punitive.	Judge properly weighed just punishment and protection considerations; discretion broad.	Weighting within reasonable bounds; no abuse of discretion.

Maulding, 627 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 2010) (empirical basis of Guidelines questioned)
Beier, 490 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2007) (discretion to weigh § 3553(a) factors; not bound to guidelines)
Miller, 601 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2010) (above-Guidelines sentence based on unsupported assumptions)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable)
Garthus, 652 F.3d 715 (7th Cir. 2011) (limits on proportional challenges to sentencing)
Maulding, 627 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 2010) (see above for empirical evidence discussion)
Huffstatler, 571 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2009) (discussion of sentencing within the heartland of offenses)
Newsom, 428 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2005) (marginal-deterrence concerns about extremes of punishment)
Klug, 670 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2012) (consecutive vs. concurrent considerations in multiple offenses)