United States v. Gomera-Rodriguez, 952 F.3d 15

Melvin Gomera-Rodríguez pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography (178 videos, equivalent to over 13,000 images) and was sentenced to 97 months' imprisonment and 20 years' supervised release (low end of the Guidelines Sentencing Range (GSR)).
PSR calculated Total Offense Level 30 (multiple enhancements including for prepubescent minors, distribution, sadistic content, computer use, and number of images); Criminal History Category I; GSR 97–121 months.
Gomera was a first-time offender, young, employed in a position with access to children, attended voluntary sex-offender treatment while on release, and argued favorable psychological testing and rehabilitation efforts.
At sentencing Gomera sought a variance/time served, arguing lack of dangerousness, youth, rehabilitation efforts, and that the child-pornography Guidelines lack empirical support; the Government recommended 97 months.
The district court weighed offense seriousness (real children victimized, distribution, deterrence) and personal characteristics, imposed 97 months, and denied objections that it treated the Guidelines as mandatory or failed to consider mitigation.
On appeal Gomera challenged the sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court procedurally err by over-weighting the offense and failing to consider personal characteristics?	Court properly considered and balanced factors; no abuse of discretion.	Court gave undue weight to conduct and failed to meaningfully weigh mitigating factors.	No abuse of discretion; court explicitly considered personal characteristics and may weigh factors differently.
Did the court commit procedural/plain error by not rejecting or addressing the alleged lack of empirical basis for the child-pornography Guidelines?	No requirement to reject Guidelines; court considered arguments and was not required to explicitly repudiate guideline provenance.	Guidelines lack empirical foundation and court should have rejected or explicitly addressed that policy argument.	Reviewed for plain error; no error. Courts need not categorically reject or expressly address the policy argument.
Was the within-Guidelines 97-month sentence substantively unreasonable given Gomera’s youth and lack of record?	Sentence is appropriate given victimization, distribution, and deterrence; Guidelines supported it.	Sentence is excessive; defendant's youth, rehabilitation, and lack of prior record warrant a variance to time served.	Substantively reasonable. District court gave a plausible rationale (harm to real children, defendant’s access to children, deterrence). Within-Guidelines sentence entitled to presumption of reasonableness.

United States v. Hassan-Saleh-Mohamad, 930 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019) (sources for facts after guilty plea)
United States v. O'Brien, 870 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2017) (same)
United States v. Sayer, 916 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2019) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing claims)
United States v. Caballero-Vázquez, 896 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2018) (standards on review of sentencing claims)
United States v. Aquino-Florenciani, 894 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 2018) (no per se abuse for declining to reject child-pornography guidelines)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (district court not required to respond to every policy argument explicitly)
United States v. Blodgett, 872 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2017) (Congress’s rationale to reduce supply and demand for child pornography)
United States v. Rodríguez-Adorno, 852 F.3d 168 (1st Cir. 2017) (within-guidelines sentences presumed reasonable)