United States v. Jack Grubb, III
707 F. App'x 422
8th Cir.2017Background
- Grubb pleaded guilty to receipt and attempted distribution of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)) and possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)).
- FBI traced downloaded child pornography to Grubb’s IP; search of his home recovered electronic media; Grubb admitted using Ares to search, view, and download child pornography and disclosed past sexual abuse of siblings and an unrelated 2012 allegation.
- PSR applied U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 enhancements producing a total offense level of 41 and Criminal History Category I; advisory Guidelines exceeded statutory maximums, yielding calculated ranges of 240 months (Counts 1–2) and 120 months (Count 3).
- Grubb objected to four enhancements and argued for a total offense level of 25 (advisory range 60–71 months) but did not renew those challenges on appeal.
- District court overruled objections and imposed concurrent sentences: 220 months on Counts One and Two (a downward variance from the calculated Guidelines) and 120 months on Count Three.
- On appeal Grubb argued the 220-month sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors (e.g., his history of being abused and lack of prior convictions).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grubb's 220-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Grubb: court failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, warranting a further downward variance | Government: district court considered § 3553(a) factors and reasonably balanced mitigation against danger to children | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court considered relevant factors and reasonably declined further variance |
| Whether the statutory maximum being below the Guidelines affects reasonableness review | Grubb: (implicit) Guidelines overstate appropriate sentence given mitigation | Government: when Guidelines exceed statutory max, the statutory maximum is presumptively reasonable; district court still may vary | Court: statutory maximum presumed reasonable; district court’s downward variance to 220 months (below calculated Guidelines but near statutory max) was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for abuse of discretion in substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991 (8th Cir. 2010) (defendant must show more than disagreement over weight of sentencing factors)
- United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2009) (when Guidelines exceed statutory maximum, the statutory maximum sentence is presumed reasonable)