United States v. Goergen
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11115
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Goergen pled guilty to four counts under 18 U.S.C. §2251(a) for sexually explicit abuse of three minors and distribution of images/videos.
- The pre-sentence report described an additional video and numerous other images/videos showing ongoing abuse; total offense level computed as 51 under 2008 guidelines, predicting life, with a 90-year statutory max.
- The district court sentenced Goergen to 60 years in prison at the 2011 sentencing hearing; he was 47 at that time.
- Goergen raises an Ex Post Facto challenge arguing post-Act guidelines were improperly applied to Counts 2–4 and that the 'one book' and 'multiple offense' rules may violate the clause.
- He also challenges the sentence as unreasonable due to risk of recidivism and the overall circumstances of the crime, asserting errors in weighing factors and mitigating evidence.
- The panel affirms the sentence, concluding that any Ex Post Facto issue was harmless and that the district court properly weighed aggravating and mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex Post Facto: proper guideline to use | Goergen argues post-Act guidelines violated Ex Post Facto for Counts 2–4. | Goergen contends one-book and multiple-offense rules may itself violate, but challenges are moot under precedent. | Harmless error; no Ex Post Facto violation. |
| Effect of guideline level on sentence | Use of post-Act level 51 (or 45) would change impact of guideline; could alter sentence. | Even if misapplied, difference immaterial because life/commanding sentence outcome same; no miscalculation affecting result. | No reversible error; sentence within allowed range and guided by factors beyond level. |
| Recidivism finding | Expert concluded moderate risk; Edwin's risk should not support 60-year term. | District court properly weighed evidence; judge had authority to rely on conduct and report. | No clear error; sentence supported by district court’s evaluation. |
| Totality of circumstances | District court failed to give due weight to mitigating factors (military service, remorse, abuse history, victim input). | Court acknowledged mitigating factors; heavily weighed aggravating factors with a thorough explanation. | Not an abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Neto, 659 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2011) (Ex Post Facto review framework for sentences)
- United States v. Gerhard, 615 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2010) (harmless error in guideline calculation)
- United States v. Silva, 554 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009) (one-book rule; multiple-offense instructions)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 630 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2010) (sentencing range and error standards on appeal)