United States v. Eric Schuster
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2405
7th Cir.2013Background
- Schuster pleaded guilty to using a minor to produce child pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a); district court sentenced him to 262 months and lifetime supervised release.
- Evidence came from Netherlands investigations of a major child-pornography network; US agents identified Schuster as a trading partner of Roberts Mikelsons.
- Law enforcement recovered Schuster's computers and SD cards containing three series of photos relevant to the case: Hello Alex, bathtub, and three-boys-in-bed.
- The first series shows a prepubescent boy with note cards referencing the recipient; the second shows a two-year-old in a bathtub; the third shows a six-year-old with Schuster's hand exposing his genitals.
- Schuster was indicted on production and possession counts; he pled guilty to production; the district court conducted a sentencing hearing and imposed a 262-month sentence.
- During sentencing, the district court relied on Schuster's pre-sentencing letter admitting distribution, even though a proffer agreement existed, and this admission affected the Guidelines calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err in finding distribution | Schuster argues no distribution; the letter was proffer-protected. | Schuster contends the admission should be shielded by the proffer agreement and not used to increase the guideline range. | No error; court affirmed distribution finding |
| Whether distribution qualifies as relevant conduct | If Hello Alex distribution is affirmed, other distributions remain relevant conduct. | If distribution is overturned, other distributions should not be counted as relevant conduct. | Affirmed distribution, so issue moot |
| Whether the bathtub image constitutes child pornography | Bathtub image shows lascivious exhibition of the genitals and supports an extra unit. | Bathtub photo not a lascivious depiction; factors are contestable. | Affirmed finding of lascivious exhibition; supported by intent and context |
| Whether the sentence is reasonable | Guideline 2G2.1 should be weighed with policy considerations and district court should defer to the Guidelines. | District court failed to adequately apply 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; sentence excessive. | Sentence deemed reasonable; within-Guideline range and properly explained |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carani, 492 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2007) (distribution finding reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Chamness, 435 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2006) (clear error standard for fact findings)
- United States v. Farmer, 543 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 2008) (enforceability and limits of proffer agreements)
- United States v. Schilling, 142 F.3d 388 (7th Cir. 1988) (promises and performance in plea negotiations)
- United States v. Russell, 662 F.3d 831 (7th Cir. 2011) (factors for lascivious exhibition and intent considerations)
- United States v. Griesbach, 540 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2008) (definition and assessment of lasciviousness)
- United States v. Arvin, 900 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990) (intent and context in evaluating photographs)
- United States v. Burt, 495 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2007) (consideration of photographer's intent in sexualized depictions)
- United States v. Maulding, 627 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 2010) (reaffirmation of guideline consideration)
- United States v. Huffstatler, 571 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2009) (guideline weight and reasonableness scrutiny)
- Mantanes, 632 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2011) (procedural vs substantive reasonableness review)