United States v. Meirick
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5504
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- FBI task force downloaded child pornography from Meirick's computer via peer-to-peer network; search of his home found hundreds of images including prepubescent/de Infantil.
- Meirick pled guilty to possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2).
- Plea agreement waived appeal of conviction and most sentencing issues, but preserved appeal in five defined circumstances including any deviation from the agreement and certain guideline-based issues.
- District court computed a 78–97 month advisory guideline range under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2; did not apply the five-level enhancement triggering an appeal waiver issue.
- Meirick moved for a downward variance; court sentenced him to 78 months with a ten-year supervised release; Meirick appealed asserting due process/equal protection challenges and issues with individualized sentencing.
- Court affirms, holding the post-Booker advisory regime permits non-Guidelines sentencing and that Meirick’s substantive challenges do not defeat the valid appeal waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 2G2.2 and its enhancements | Meirick argues due process/equal protection flaws in § 2G2.2. | Government argues sentencing is a legislative, not constitutional, determination and standards defer to Congress. | No due process/equal protection violation; Guidelines advisory post-Booker; plain error not shown; affirmed. |
| Whether lack of individualized sentencing violated the Constitution | Meirick claims “typical” offense characterization prevented individualized sentencing. | Sentencing scheme need not guarantee individualized sentencing; not a constitutional issue. | Not a constitutional requirement; reasonable under post-Booker discretion; affirmed. |
| Post-Booker framework permits non-Guidelines sentences | Meirick argues deviation from Guidelines invalid. | District court may impose non-Guidelines sentence within statutory bounds. | Post-Booker discretion valid; sentence within discretion; affirmed. |
| Effect of the appeal waiver on challenging sentence | Waiver bars appeal of substantive reasonableness. | Waiver valid and enforceable; appeal of sentence barred. | Appeal waiver valid; cannot challenge substantive reasonableness on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ellefson, 419 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for sentencing challenges; deference to legislative judgments)
- Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (Supreme Court 2011) (Guidelines advisory; district courts may impose non-Guidelines sentences under § 3553(a))
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness standard for post-Booker sentences)
- United States v. Fortney, 357 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2004) (Guidelines implementing directives; discretion post-Booker)
- Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (Supreme Court 1991) (constitutional sentencing not always individualized; not required in non-capital cases)
- United States v. Brittman, 872 F.2d 827 (8th Cir. 1989) (individualized sentencing not guaranteed; non-capital cases)
- United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886 (8th Cir. 2003) (appeal waiver enforceability; en banc considerations)
- Doe v. Miller, 405 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 2005) (rational-basis review in sentencing context (illustrative))
- United States v. Villareal-Amarillas, 562 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 2009) (post-Booker substantive reasonableness standard)