United States v. Matthew Hanson
693 F. App'x 521
9th Cir.2017Background
- Matthew Hanson pled guilty to possession and distribution of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A and was sentenced to 87 months imprisonment (within Guidelines range 87–108 months).
- The district court applied a Guidelines enhancement for possession of 300 images under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(C), counting each of four videos Hanson had as 75 images each.
- Hanson exchanged online chats with an undercover agent in which he sought images of an alleged 8-year-old, expressed intent to sexually assault a minor, and tried to arrange a meeting involving the child.
- Hanson argued (1) procedural error in applying the 300-image enhancement, (2) First Amendment violation from considering chat content at sentencing, and (3) substantive unreasonableness of his sentence by comparison to a lighter sentence in another case.
- The district court acknowledged its advisory-role discretion, expressly disagreed with one Guidelines enhancement (computer-use), but accepted the policy of treating videos as multiple images; it relied on the chats as relevant conduct and public-danger evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred in applying 300-image enhancement by counting videos as 75 images each | Hanson: court should not count each video as 75 images; procedural error for applying enhancement without proper discretion | Gov: district court properly exercised discretion, recognized Guidelines are advisory, and agreed with video-counting policy | No procedural error; court acknowledged discretion and endorsed counting videos as heavier than photos |
| Whether considering chat content violated First Amendment | Hanson: his expressed beliefs in chats are protected and cannot be used at sentencing | Gov: chats were conduct-based, part of distribution offense and relevant to circumstances and danger to public | No First Amendment violation; chats were part of offense and relevant to § 3553(a) factors |
| Whether 87-month sentence was substantively unreasonable | Hanson: sentence unreasonable, especially given lighter sentence in another, similar case | Gov: district court considered § 3553(a) factors and is not required to match other sentences | Sentence substantively reasonable; no clear error and courts need not conform to sentences in other cases |
| Whether district court had to vary from Guidelines due to general empirical critiques | Hanson: district court should vary based on lack of empirical support identified in Henderson | Gov: district court is not required to vary absent an actual policy disagreement | No; district court need not vary merely because it noted empirical concerns and did vary on a different enhancement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2011) (district court must not treat Guidelines as mandatory but need not vary absent a true policy disagreement)
- Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S. 159 (1992) (defendant's abstract beliefs protected unless relevant to issues in the case)
- United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2007) (opinions may be used as evidence when relevant to issues)
- United States v. Christensen, 828 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard for substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Kahre, 737 F.3d 554 (9th Cir. 2013) (district courts not required to conform sentences to those in similar cases)
- United States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court cannot compare proposed sentence to every prior sentence)