United States v. Darrick Boroczk, 705 F.3d 616

Boroczk, a self-described 'kingpin' of online child pornography, created hundreds of images and videos involving his young children; authorities found about 8,452 still images and 186 videos on his computer.
Between 2006–2008, Boroczk produced approximately 300 images and multiple videos of sexual conduct involving his three- to five-year-old daughter and his two-year-old son.
He was charged with five counts: four counts of manufacturing child pornography and one count of possessing child pornography.
He was arrested July 30, 2009; after initial denials, Boroczk admitted to taking pictures and described their conduct in graphic detail.
At sentencing, the district court imposed four 15-year sentences for manufacturing counts and a 10-year sentence for possession, to be served consecutively (total 70 years), despite guideline range suggesting life imprisonment.
Boroczk appeals alleging procedural errors at sentencing and that the 70-year sentence is substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the sentencing procedure properly followed under §3553(a) and guidelines?	Boroczk argues error in how the district court calculated and applied the guidelines.	Boroczk contends the court overstated future risk and failed to account for evidence suggesting lower recidivism risk.	Procedures were proper; court followed two-step process and explained the rationale.
Is the 70-year consecutive sentence substantively reasonable under 3553(a)?	Boroczk asserts the sentence is too harsh given mitigating evidence and uncertainties about risk.	Boroczk argues that the sentence is excessive and not justified by the factors.	Yes; sentence is reasonable, substantially below the life-guidelines range, and within the court’s discretion.

United States v. Dale, 498 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2007) (guidelines calculation for advisory range guidance)
United States v. Veysey, 334 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2003) (consecutive sentencing when necessary to reach guideline range)
United States v. Noel, 581 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2009) (presumption of reasonableness when within substantial guideline range below life)
United States v. Russell, 662 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2011) (presumption applies for substantially below-range sentences)
United States v. Klug, 670 F.3d 797 (7th Cir. 2012) (affirming presumptive reasonableness under guidelines)
United States v. Tanner, 628 F.3d 890 (7th Cir. 2010) (guidelines life sentence effectively presumptively reasonable)
United States v. Reibel, 688 F.3d 868 (7th Cir. 2012) (deference to sentencing discretion within reason)
United States v. Shannon, 518 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (within-guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; deferential review)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requires meaningful explanation to support sentence; within-range presumption)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes standard for appellate review of sentencing; need for explanation)
Holt v. United States, 486 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2007) (requires consideration of §3553(a) factors; meaningful review)