United States v. Kyle W. Oberg
877 F.3d 261
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kyle Oberg pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) and one count of possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)) after investigators found 337 photos and three videos of his five‑year‑old daughter exposing her genitals.
- The evidence included two videos showing the child seated with legs spread and applying gel to her vagina and a third showing digital penetration.
- Probation calculated a Guidelines sentence of 360 months for counts 1–2 and 240 months for count 3 (offense level capped at 43; Criminal History I) based on multiple specific offense‑level enhancements that Oberg did not dispute.
- Oberg argued the child‑pornography Guidelines are unduly severe, lack empirical support, and produce overly punitive results driven by Congressional direction; he requested a 15‑year term (statutory minimum for one count).
- The district court adopted the probation calculations, considered § 3553(a) factors, found the offense “extremely serious,” and imposed a within‑Guidelines 30‑year sentence plus lifetime supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Oberg) | Defendant's Argument (Government / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the within‑Guidelines 30‑year sentence is substantively unreasonable | Guidelines for child pornography are overly severe, lack empirical basis, and produce undifferentiated punishment; sentence should be below Guidelines (15 years) | Guidelines are appropriate given offense gravity; judge properly exercised discretion in weighing policy objections and § 3553 factors | Affirmed: within‑Guidelines sentence was reasonable and judge properly exercised discretion |
| Whether the district court failed to adequately consider § 3553(a) factors | Court did not sufficiently weigh defendant’s history/characteristics, low recidivism risk, and availability of treatment on supervised release | Court considered nature and circumstances, defendant’s limited record, availability of treatment post‑incarceration, and emphasized seriousness, just punishment, deterrence | Affirmed: court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors and gave permissible reasons for the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Price, 775 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2014) (upholding a below‑Guidelines sentence where district court reasonably disagreed with child‑pornography Guidelines)
- United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (critiquing the child‑pornography Guidelines and their empirical basis)
- United States v. Grober, 624 F.3d 592 (3d Cir. 2010) (criticizing the severity and empirical support for child‑pornography Guidelines)
- United States v. Huffstatler, 571 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2009) (district courts may disagree with Guidelines but are not required to impose below‑Guidelines sentences)