United States v. King
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1949
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- In 2011 King was indicted under 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)(B) for possessing a computer containing surreptitiously recorded videos of his minor stepdaughter masturbating; he pleaded guilty.
- The PSR recommended base offense level 18 with enhancements: +5 (pattern of abuse), +2 (use of a computer), +3 (150–300 images based on video-to-image conversion), and a -3 for acceptance of responsibility — yielding total offense level 25 and a GSR of 57–71 months (criminal history I).
- At sentencing the district court rejected the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction and sustained the three enhancements, producing offense level 28 and a GSR of 78–97 months.
- The district court varied downward based on §3553(a) factors (victim age, surreptitious recording in bathroom, betrayal of trust, defendant’s conduct) and imposed a 72-month sentence.
- King appealed, arguing the computer and images-count enhancements produced a substantively unreasonable sentence by lumping dissimilar conduct together; he also raised ineffective-assistance claims for the first time in reply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of 72‑month sentence | N/A (appellant King challenges sentence) | The combined effect of computer and images-count enhancements made the guideline calculation unreasonably severe and failed to avoid unwarranted disparities | Affirmed — sentence is substantively reasonable; court properly considered §3553(a) factors and gave a plausible, case‑specific rationale |
| Applicability of computer-use enhancement | N/A | Computer enhancement overbroad because aimed at Internet trafficking, not isolated offline use | District court correctly applied enhancement—it covers computer use generally |
| Applicability of images-count enhancement | N/A | Images enhancement improperly groups small video cache with larger collections, overstates seriousness | District court reasonably applied enhancement as a rough proxy for seriousness |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to seek acceptance credit | King (in reply) | N/A (raised first on appeal) | Not addressed on direct appeal; waived and may be pursued on collateral review under §2255 |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (two‑step review: procedural then substantive; guidelines are a starting point)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (guidelines are a "rough approximation" and starting benchmark)
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (guidelines cannot be applied uncritically; unexplained long sentence may be substantively unreasonable)
- United States v. Pelletier, 469 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2006) (within‑Guidelines sentences typically reasonable)
- United States v. Rodríguez, 527 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. 2008) (courts must avoid narrow focus on a single sentencing factor)
- United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (substantive reasonableness requires a plausible rationale and defensible result)
- United States v. Stone, 575 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2009) (discussing concerns about severity of child‑pornography guidelines)
- United States v. Fernández‑Cabrera, 625 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (guidance on sourcing facts after guilty plea)
- United States v. Maldonado‑García, 446 F.3d 227 (1st Cir. 2006) (ineffective‑assistance claims typically not considered on direct review)
- United States v. Mala, 7 F.3d 1058 (1st Cir. 1993) (same)