United States v. Doerr, ACM 38963

Appellant pleaded guilty, pursuant to a pretrial agreement (PTA), to wrongful possession with intent to distribute child pornography in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.
Over nine months he used peer-to-peer software to collect and store >800 known child pornography files and made them available for others to download.
Images depicted sexual acts involving girls aged about 7 to 15 years.
Military judge sentenced Appellant to a dishonorable discharge, four years confinement, and reduction to E-1; convening authority approved.
PTA removed a separate distribution specification (dismissed with prejudice) and limited convening authority approval of confinement to no more than five years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the approved sentence is inappropriately severe	Appellant contends the sentence is excessive and asks the court to compare sentences in other child pornography cases to show disparity	Government argues Appellant failed to identify closely related cases and that individualized review supports the sentence	Court affirmed: sentence not inappropriately severe; Appellant failed to meet burden for sentence comparison and court found the sentence appropriate on the record

United States v. Lane, 64 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (standard for de novo sentence appropriateness review)
United States v. Anderson, 67 M.J. 703 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2009) (factors for assessing sentence appropriateness)
United States v. Snelling, 14 M.J. 267 (C.M.A. 1982) (individualized consideration of offender and offense required)
United States v. Mamaluy, 27 C.M.R. 176 (C.M.A. 1959) (historical articulation of individualized sentencing review)
United States v. Sothen, 54 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (sentence comparison is limited and rare)
United States v. Lacy, 50 M.J. 286 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (burden on appellant to show closely related cases and disparate sentences)
United States v. Ballard, 20 M.J. 282 (C.M.A. 1985) (limitations of comparing promulgating orders to assess sentencing factors)
United States v. Nerad, 69 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (courts not authorized to act as clemency boards)