United States v. Glen Sterling Carpenter
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17560
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2013 law enforcement traced user "gcarp@ares" sharing child pornography to Glen Sterling Carpenter; a seized laptop contained 64 videos (4,800 images), including footage of prepubescent children and sadistic conduct.
- Carpenter admitted downloading child pornography for about a year, waived Miranda, and pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252.
- The PSI produced a total offense level of 30 (after a 3-level acceptance reduction) and a Guidelines range of 97–121 months; statutory maximum was 240 months and supervised release 5 years–life.
- Carpenter asked for a downward variance to 56 months, relying on a Sentencing Commission report criticizing § 2G2.2; the government recommended the low end of the Guidelines.
- The district court sentenced Carpenter to 97 months (bottom of the Guidelines range) and lifetime supervised release with special conditions barring computer/use of Internet (except court-approved employment) and banning possession of sexually explicit material (including adult pornography).
- On appeal Carpenter challenged procedural and substantive reasonableness of the prison term, the lifetime supervised release, and the two special conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Carpenter) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of 97-month prison sentence | Court failed to adequately consider §3553(a) factors and over-relied on Guidelines/Report criticisms justify variance | Court properly treated Guidelines as advisory, considered §3553(a), and explained rejection of variance | Affirmed — no procedural error; court sufficiently explained and considered factors |
| Substantive reasonableness of 97-month sentence | Sentence is excessive for first-time, non-production, no-contact offender; many peers received variances | Severity of offense (volume, young ages, sadistic content) supports within-Guidelines sentence | Affirmed — within-Guidelines bottom-range sentence not an abuse of discretion |
| Lifetime term of supervised release | Life supervision unreasonable absent proof of child abuse or other need | Carpenter requested lifetime supervised release at sentencing; invited any error | Affirmed — invited-error doctrine bars challenge to the life term |
| Special conditions (computer ban and ban on sexually explicit material including adult porn) | Conditions are overly broad and restrict lawful activity (adult pornography, computer use for life) | Conditions relate to offense (internet-facilitated child porn), are recommended by Guidelines, and court has discretion to tailor conditions | Affirmed — no plain error shown; circuits split so no controlling precedent establishing plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (explains sufficiency of district court explanation for sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (abuse-of-discretion standard for substantive review of sentences)
- Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350 (no presumption of reasonableness for Guidelines)
- United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888 (11th Cir.) (Sentencing Commission report does not invalidate § 2G2.2)
- United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir.) (upholding computer-restriction condition for child-pornography offender)
- United States v. Love, 449 F.3d 1154 (11th Cir.) (invited-error doctrine: defendant who requested supervised release cannot later challenge it)