United States v. John Farrar, 876 F.3d 702

John Farrar, serving a federal sentence for child pornography (sentenced 2007), was found in May 2015 with seven hand-drawn images and two handwritten books depicting sexual abuse of minors; he admitted buying the drawings and writing the books.
Farrar pleaded nolo contendere to one count under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b)(1) (possession of obscene depictions of minors) after the magistrate judge accepted the Government’s offer of proof describing the images; Farrar stated he would not contest the factual basis and apologized for the court having to view the images.
The magistrate judge, despite initial skepticism about a nolo contendere plea, recommended acceptance; the district court accepted the plea and imposed the 10-year mandatory minimum for repeat offenders under § 2252A(b)(2), to run concurrently with Farrar’s prior sentence and effective from the offense date, resulting in about 4.5 additional years.
On appeal Farrar challenged (1) that the images were not obscene and that the appellate court must independently review obscenity despite his nolo contendere plea, and (2) that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment (both as-applied gross-disproportionality and a categorical challenge to the ten-year minimum).
The Fifth Circuit held Farrar waived his obscenity challenge by pleading nolo contendere and affirmatively agreeing the elements (including obscenity) were satisfied; the court also rejected his Eighth Amendment challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Farrar)	Defendant's Argument (Government)	Held
Whether appellate court must independently review obscenity despite nolo contendere plea	Farrar: Miller requires independent appellate review of obscenity; plea doesn’t forfeit that right	Gov: Farrar agreed obscenity in district court and waived/estopped appellate review	Held: Waiver (and judicial-estoppel rationale) bars his obscenity challenge; no independent review on appeal
Whether nolo contendere plea required factual-basis review	Farrar: court must still ensure unprotected nature of material (citing Clicque)	Gov: Rule 11 does not require factual basis for nolo contendere; Farrar expressly accepted Government’s offer of proof	Held: No factual-basis requirement for nolo contendere; Farrar expressly accepted proof, so challenge waived
Whether 10-year mandatory minimum is grossly disproportionate as-applied	Farrar: Sentence excessive compared to other offenses; Stanley/Free Speech Coalition suggest possession protection	Gov: Eighth Amendment relief rare; Congress may punish recidivists and child-related offenses more harshly; factual circumstances aggravate	Held: Rejected — sentence not grossly disproportionate
Whether 10-year mandatory minimum is categorically disproportionate	Farrar: Ten-year term for mere drawings is categorically cruel	Gov: Categorical analysis applies only to death/LWOP juvenile cases; no national consensus	Held: Rejected — categorical challenge inappropriate for term-of-years sentence

Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., 466 U.S. 485 (First Amendment review principles cited)
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (establishes three-part obscenity test)
Lott v. United States, 367 U.S. 421 (effects and nature of nolo contendere plea)
Prince, 533 F.2d 205 (5th Cir.) (Rule 11: no factual-basis requirement for nolo contendere)
Clicque v. United States, 514 F.2d 923 (5th Cir.) (trial court must assess unprotected nature of material before accepting plea — distinguishable)
Broome, 628 F.2d 403 (5th Cir.) (nolo contendere waives nonjurisdictional defects)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (doctrine and purposes of judicial estoppel)
Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (factor on unfair advantage in judicial-estoppel analysis)
Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (possession in home and obscenity principles discussed)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (distinction between virtual and actual child pornography; does not bar punishing obscenity)
Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (Eighth Amendment gross-disproportionality standard; deference to legislature)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (Eighth Amendment principles on proportionality)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (framework for categorical Eighth Amendment analysis)
Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (upholding severe term under recidivist statutes)