United States v. Miller
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24634
5th Cir.2011Background
- Miller pled guilty to transportation of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1).
- District court imposed 220 months' imprisonment within the Guidelines range and 25 years of supervised release.
- Guidelines calculation attributed Miller with possession of 495 images (45 stills and 6 videos counted as 75 each).
- Investigation tied Miller to online chat with underage individuals and prior Navy investigations for similar conduct.
- Miller challenged the sentence as substantively unreasonable and the supervised release conditions as overly restrictive.
- Court reviews for reasonableness under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 3583, giving deference to district court findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 220-month sentence is substantively reasonable | Miller | Miller | Sentence within range reasonable; not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether 25-year Internet/computer-use ban is reasonably related to § 3553(a) factors | Miller | Miller | Restriction upheld; probation officer can modify with exceptions |
| Whether the camera/photographic device ban is permissible | Miller | Miller | Plainly read as limited to recording devices; not plain error |
| Whether the sexually stimulating materials restriction is valid and not vague | Miller | Miller | Condition sustained; commonsense understanding and nexus to § 3553(a) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Duarte, 569 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 2009) (empirical data not required to uphold guidelines presumption)
- United States v. Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences; discuss empirical basis)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (guidelines must be considered among § 3553(a) factors; within-range not automatically unreasonable)
- United States v. Paul, 274 F.3d 155 (5th Cir. 2001) (absolute vs. non-absolute computer/Internet restrictions; reasonableness standard)
- United States v. Love, 593 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (considers Internet bans and balancing public safety vs. liberty)
- United States v. Rearden, 349 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2003) (observe circuit split on internet-use restrictions in supervised release)
- United States v. Heckman, 592 F.3d 400 (3d Cir. 2010) (vacating unconditional lifetime Internet ban where not sufficiently tailored)