United States v. Meschino, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14250

Meschino pleaded guilty to distributing and possessing child pornography and received a total guideline range of 360 months to life.
Enhancements included a five-level gain for a pattern of sexual abuse of a minor and a five-level gain for possessing 600+ images, among others; total offense level was 42.
Judgment sentenced him to 240 months on distribution and 120 months on possession, to run consecutively (statutory maximums within guidelines).
Victim A, Meschino’s niece, testified he sexually abused her for about ten years beginning when she was ~4 and continuing until ~14.
At sentencing, Meschino sought to cross-examine Victim A about a separate rape allegation against a stepbrother; the district court limited this cross-examination.
He challenged § 2G2.2(b)(7) as Congress directly promulgating the provision, and argued the sentence on the possession count was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether cross-examination of Victim A was properly barred	Meschino contends the rape allegation undermines Victim A's credibility.	Meschino argues the recent allegation is probative of credibility and admissible.	Yes, district court properly limited cross-examination as outweighed by harassment risk and weak probative value.
Whether § 2G2.2(b)(7) was validly applied despite direct congressional promulgation	Rodgers principle supports use of § 2G2.2(b)(7) despite lack of Sentencing Commission input.	Congress may fix sentencing policy, so direct enactment is permissible.	Applied; direct congressional enactment does not violate separation of powers per Rodgers.
Whether the 120-month possession sentence is substantively reasonable	Challenge that § 2G2.2(b)(4) (sadistic/masochistic materials) is overstated and lacks empirical support.	Court properly weighed aggravating factors and within-guidelines sentence is reasonable.	Within-guidelines sentence upheld; the district court properly considered aggravating factors and 3553(a) factors.

United States v. Rodgers, 610 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2010) (direct congressional action on sentencing provisions permissible under Mistretta framework)
Tail v. United States, 459 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2006) (limits on cross-examination in credibility assessment at sentencing)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (S. Ct. 2007) (within-guidelines sentences presumptively reasonable on appeal)
Maulding, 627 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 2010) (courts must correctly calculate guidelines and weigh 3553(a) factors)
Huffstatler, 571 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2009) (critique of empirical data in sexual-exploitation guidelines; permissibility of within-guidelines application)
Nurek, 578 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2009) (preservation of within-guidelines reasoning and 3553(a) analysis)
Szakacs, 212 F.3d 344 (7th Cir. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing evidence)
Roche, 415 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2005) (confrontation clause not implicated at sentencing)
Nunez, 627 F.3d 274 (7th Cir. 2010) (relaxed evidentiary standards at sentencing)
Van Arsdall, 106 S. Ct. 1431 (1986) (confrontation right and cross-examination limits in certain contexts)