United States v. Maier
646 F.3d 1148
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Maier, a Navy police officer, was investigated for receipt/distribution of child pornography after agents traced images to his dorm room.
- Maier pleaded guilty to Count One (receipt/distribution) and later to Count Two (possession) without a plea agreement.
- District court calculated Maier’s Guidelines range (2G2.2) and vacated possession (Count Two) to sentence under receipt/distribution (Count One).
- Court found substantial volume and violence in images, including prepubescent victims, and imposed 210 months plus lifetime supervised release.
- Court rejected duplicative conviction approach by Davenport and exercised discretion under Hector, guided by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- Maier appealed, challenging the count vacatur decision and asserting procedural/substantive unreasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for abuse of discretion post-Hinkson | Maier argues the district court misapplied standard of review. | Maier contends the court should follow Hinkson two-step test. | Affirmed applying Hinkson standard |
| Whether district court abused discretion in vacating Count Two | Maier asserts lesser-included offense should be vacated; abuse of discretion alleged. | Maier contends factors favored vacating greater offense; proper discretion exercised. | Discretion exercised in favor of vacating Count Two affirmed |
| Role of § 3553(a) factors in choosing count to vacate | Maier argues factors ignored or misapplied. | Court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors and totality of circumstances. | § 3553(a) guiding factors properly applied |
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Maier contends court failed to explain non-departure mitigation. | Court adequately explained reasons consistent with Rita and Carty. | Sentence procedurally reasonable |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Maier argues mitigating factors warranted downward departure. | Totality supported by severe nature of offense; no downward departure warranted. | Sentence substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Amezcua-Vasquez, 567 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2009) (cited for comparison of deferring to district court discretion)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir.2009) (establishes the two-step test for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Davenport, 519 F.3d 940 (9th Cir.2008) (double jeopardy prohibits conviction and sentencing for both possession and receipt/distribution)
- United States v. Hector, 577 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir.2009) (district court must decide which count to vacate under Hector; use § 3553(a) factors)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (guides consideration of § 3553(a) factors and reasoned decision making)
- Carty v. United States, 520 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.2008) (procedural sufficiency of explanation in sentencing decisions)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to sentencing)
- United States v. Jose, 425 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir.2005) (district court should convict on greater offense when possible, absent congressional intent)
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) (no right to choose penalty scheme among applicable statutes)