United States v. Cunningham
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3689
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Cunningham pled guilty to three child pornography offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), 2252A(a)(2), 2252A(a)(5)(B).
- District court sentenced him to 121 months on counts 1 and 2 and 120 months on count 3, to be served concurrently.
- PSR adopted with offense level 35 and several § 2G2.2 enhancements; after acceptance of responsibility, adjusted to level 32 with a Guidelines range of 121–151 months (counts 1 and 2) and 120 months (count 3).
- Court considered extensive briefing, a psychological evaluation, victim impact statements, and Defendant’s images and conduct.
- Defendant challenged procedural and substantive aspects of sentencing; the court issued a written opinion and sentenced at the bottom of the advisory range.
- On appeal, Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 32(i) compliance at sentencing | Wilson concerns; court did not err. | Sentence opinion prepared before hearing; violated Rule 32(i). | No error; procedure exemplary and compliant. |
| Use of recidivism studies in sentencing | Commission data supported a higher risk assessment; court properly relied on other studies. | Should have given greater weight to Commission data; over-relied on hands-on offender studies. | Not reversible; court’s personalized recidivism assessment within §3553(a) factors was permissible. |
| Consideration of defendant's images/behavior and §2G2.2 enhancements | Enhancements appropriately applied and justified. | Certain factual bases for enhancements were weak or misinterpreted. | Enhancements upheld; district court properly weighed factors. |
| Substantive reasonableness and weight of psychological evidence | Sentence reasonable given nature, risk, and 3553(a) factors. | Psychological evaluation favored a lower sentence. | Affirmed; district court properly weighed §3553(a) factors and did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion and procedural/standards of review for sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (reasonableness of sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) guidelines)
- United States v. Wilson, 614 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2010) (Rule 32(i) procedure in sentencing hearings)
- United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2012) (district court may rely on §2G2.2 enhancements with policy-based justification)