United States v. Michael Cottrell
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5771
8th Cir.2017Background
- Cottrell pled guilty to one count each of receipt and possession of child pornography; district court sentenced him to 360 months’ imprisonment (within the Guidelines range).
- Law enforcement executed a search of Cottrell’s home after peer-to-peer activity; they seized a laptop with 422 videos and 1,687 images of possible child pornography (PSR noted 33,337 images; Cottrell did not object to the image-total paragraph).
- Officers found notebooks containing handwritten sexual stories involving minors; Cottrell admitted downloading child pornography and discussed a prior juvenile sex-related incident in Kentucky.
- The PSR initially treated the Kentucky juvenile matter as a prior conviction and included enhancements, producing a higher Guidelines range; the Government later declined to pursue the prior-conviction enhancement because disposition records were unclear.
- At sentencing the district court cited the Kentucky juvenile incident and other aggravating factors (image quantity and pretrial-release violations) in denying Cottrell’s motion for a downward variance; Cottrell did not object at sentencing and received a sentence at the bottom of the calculated Guidelines range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by relying on an unproven juvenile conviction when denying a downward variance | Cottrell: court relied on contested, unproven juvenile conviction; error was procedural and prejudicial | Government: Kentucky incident facts were undisputed in conduct though disposition unclear; court relied on multiple aggravating factors; no prejudice shown | Court: Error occurred (consideration of unproven, objected-to facts) but no plain-error prejudice shown; sentence affirmed |
| Whether the 360-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Cottrell: sentence excessive given acceptance of responsibility, lack of adult criminal history, and mitigation efforts | Government: sentence within Guidelines and supported by record (images, conduct, pretrial violations) | Court: within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; defendant failed to rebut presumption; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (defines procedural error at sentencing)
- United States v. Grimes, 702 F.3d 460 (8th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for unpreserved sentencing errors)
- United States v. Miller, 557 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error prejudice standard at sentencing)
- United States v. Webster, 788 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 2015) (PSR allegations are not proof; contested facts require government proof by preponderance)
- United States v. Linderman, 587 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2009) (within-Guidelines sentence presumptively substantively reasonable)