United States v. John Mantanes
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 636
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Mantanes, a dentist, was found trading 1380 images and 141 videos of child pornography online.
- Among the material were extremely graphic images; some depicted his own children, including a sign reading 'no limits'.
- He pled guilty to one count of receiving child pornography; other counts were dismissed; advisory guideline range was 210–262 months, max 240 months.
- District court sentenced Mantanes to 210 months, arguing it was at the bottom of the guideline range and below the statutory maximum.
- Mantanes appeals on (a) procedural adequacy of §3553(a) consideration and (b) substantive reasonableness under Dorvee.
- The court applies a presumption of reasonableness to within-guideline sentences; Mantanes challenges the court’s application of §3553(a) factors and Dr. Carroll’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court properly consider §3553(a) factors? | Mantanes asserts procedural error for incomplete §3553(a) consideration. | Mantanes contends the judge gave meaningful consideration to §3553(a) factors. | No procedural error; meaningful consideration found. |
| Was the sentence substantively reasonable under Dorvee? | Dorvee shows district court overemphasized public protection. | Judge balanced deterrence, protection, and treatment; Dorvee is distinguishable. | Sentence not substantively unreasonable; Dorvee distinguished. |
| Did the court properly apply the presumption of reasonableness for a within-guideline sentence? | Presumption should be rebutted given individual factors and expert testimony. | District court’s individualized approach defeats any presumption concerns. | Presumption applied; burden not overcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (concerns about guideline structure and weight on public protection; need for careful §3553(a) analysis)
- United States v. Corson, 579 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2009) (procedural review of sentencing for §3553(a) factors)
- United States v. Coopman, 602 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2010) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guideline sentences)
- United States v. Blue, 453 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2006) (guideline-based presumption framework)
- Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (see above Dorvee entry (duplicate for emphasis))