958 F.3d 145
2d Cir.2020Background:
- From March–April 2017 Haverkamp exchanged ~400 messages with an undercover FBI agent on KIK, sending ~35 image/video files and a cloud link containing hundreds of child-pornography files (including infants/toddlers).
- FBI executed a search warrant in July 2017; Haverkamp made incriminating statements and admitted at one point to sexual relations with a 14‑year‑old.
- Haverkamp pled guilty to one count of distribution/receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A.
- PSR calculated offense level 37, CHC I, Guidelines range 210–262 months; district court sentenced Haverkamp to 121 months (well below the Guidelines), five years supervised release, $200 under § 3013, and $10,000 under § 3014 (applied per‑count).
- Supervised release included a condition requiring monitoring of Internet‑connected devices for “impermissible or suspicious activity.”
- On appeal Haverkamp challenged (1) substantive reasonableness of the 121‑month sentence, (2) the $10,000 § 3014 assessment (argued should be $5,000 per offender), and (3) the breadth of the computer‑monitoring condition.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of 121‑month sentence | Guidelines should be applied with skepticism; 121 months is substantively unreasonable | District court considered offense seriousness, solicitation/production risk, admissions, and mitigation; sentence below Guidelines appropriate | Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Validity of $10,000 § 3014 assessment | § 3014 authorizes $5,000 per non‑indigent offender (per‑offender) — district erred by applying per‑count | Government accepted district’s per‑count imposition at sentencing (no timely objection) | Vacated in part — court erred; § 3014 applies per‑offender (max $5,000); remand for recalculation |
| Computer‑monitoring condition of supervised release | Condition overbroad; covers all activity on devices and is greater than necessary | Condition reasonably related to offense and risk given online and in‑person sexual contact with minors | Affirmed under plain‑error review — condition reasonably related to offense; not plainly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for abuse‑of‑discretion review of sentence)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review framework for sentencing)
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (warning to apply §2G2.2 guidelines with care)
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (2010) (plain‑error review principles for unpreserved sentencing issues)
- United States v. Matta, 777 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2015) (relaxed plain‑error approach at sentencing)
- United States v. Pagan, 785 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1986) (interpreting per‑count application of § 3013 assessments)
- United States v. Johnman, 948 F.3d 612 (3d Cir. 2020) (held § 3014 applied per‑count — cited and disagreed with)
- United States v. Luongo, 11 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 1993) (interpreted § 3013 per‑count; relied on by Johnman)
- United States v. Johnson, 446 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 2006) (supervised‑release condition must be reasonably related and not greater than necessary)
- United States v. Myers, 426 F.3d 117 (2d Cir. 2005) (limits on overly broad computer/Internet conditions of supervised release)