United States v. Maier
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8512
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Maier was convicted on two counts: receipt/distribution of child pornography (Count One) and possession of the same (Count Two).
- The district court vacated Count Two and sentenced Maier under Count One, imposing 210 months’ imprisonment and a lifetime supervised release.
- Images involved were thousands of child-pornography files, including prepubescent and very young victims; Maier admitted addiction and ongoing involvement.
- Maier pleaded guilty to Count One in June 2009 and to Count Two at the sentencing hearing; the district court then weighed § 3553(a) factors to determine the sentence.
- On appeal, Maier challenged (a) the choice of which count to vacate under Davenport and Hector, and (b) the procedural/substantive reasonableness of the sentence; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly vacated Count Two and sentenced under Count One | Maier argues the court should have vacated the greater offense. | Maier contends the court abused discretion in selecting which count to vacate. | Court must apply §3553(a) factors when choosing which count to vacate; affirmed district court's vacatur of Count Two and sentence under Count One. |
| Whether the district court correctly applied 3553(a) in selecting the sentence | Maier argues mitigating factors or 3553(a) warranted a lower sentence. | Maier contends factors justify a downward departure. | District court thoroughly explained reasons; no abuse of discretion; sentence within reason. |
| Procedural reasonableness of the sentence | Maier claims the court failed to explain why it did not depart downward. | Maier asserts lack of below-Guidelines justification. | Court adequately explained reasoning; no procedural unreasonableness. |
| Substantive reasonableness of the sentence | Mitigating factors should yield a downward departure. | Factors weighed against departure; offense was very serious. | Sentence not substantively unreasonable given totality of circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davenport, 519 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2008) (double jeopardy limits conviction and sentencing for both offenses when predicated on same images)
- United States v. Hector, 577 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court must decide which count to vacate under Hector; discretion guided by 3553(a))
- United States v. Jose, 425 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2005) (when two offenses are convicted, court should vacate the lesser offense absent compelling reasons)
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) (defendant has no right to choose the penalty scheme; different statutes do not grant right to select punishment)
- United States v. Schales, 546 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2008) (relevant to multiple-offense sentencing and discretion)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (plea-for context on factors under § 3553(a) and appellate review)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (guidelines furthered by 3553(a); discretionary sentencing guidance)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for procedural/substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2008) (procedural explanation sufficiency; meaningful appellate review standard)
- United States v. Overton, 573 F.3d 679 (9th Cir. 2009) (mitigating factors and justification for non-departure in child pornography cases)