United States v. Kennett McElderry
875 F.3d 863
8th Cir.2017Background
- Kennett McElderry pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), 2252(b)(1).
- The district court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 235–240 months and sentenced McElderry to 130 months after a downward variance.
- Defense submitted a sentencing memorandum seeking a 60-month sentence, emphasizing extensive cooperation, remorse, good pretrial conduct, and alleged overstated criminal history.
- The memorandum compared sentences imposed by six different judges on thirteen unrelated prior offenders in the District of Minnesota.
- At sentencing the court stated it considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and declined defense requests to reduce the sentence further; McElderry appealed as substantively unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court failed to consider § 3553(a)(6) sentencing‑disparity factor | McElderry: court should avoid unwarranted disparities; his sentence is higher than similar defendants | Government: district court considered § 3553(a) factors; disparities to unrelated defendants across multiple judges do not require resentencing | Court: No procedural requirement to compare to unrelated defendants; § 3553(a)(6) reliance misplaced in this context |
| Whether the 130‑month sentence is substantively unreasonable | McElderry: sentence is greater than necessary given cooperation and lesser culpability | Government: sentencing court acted within discretion after weighing § 3553(a) factors | Court: Under deferential review, district court did not abuse its discretion; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Barron, 557 F.3d 866 (8th Cir.) (declining to impose a requirement that district judges compare sentences to other courts)
- United States v. Soliz, 857 F.3d 781 (8th Cir.) (disparity arguments often reflect disagreement with § 3553(a) weighing)
- United States v. Lazenby, 439 F.3d 928 (8th Cir.) (remand for resentencing in unusual consolidated‑appeal circumstances)
- United States v. Fry, 792 F.3d 884 (8th Cir.) (limited Lazenby to unusual circumstances; no principled basis to pick appropriate sentences across different judges)
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (standard of review for substantive reasonableness of sentence)