United States v. Morrison, 771 F.3d 687

Morrison pled guilty to possessing material involving sexual exploitation of minors under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2) and was sentenced to 120 months.
Forensic analysis showed over 20,000 child-pornography images on Morrison’s computers, including prepubescent and explicit content involving identified victims.
PSR calculated total offense level 30 with multiple enhancements and a 3-level reduction for plea; criminal history placed him in Category III, yielding a Guideline range of 121–151 months but a statutory maximum of 120 months controlled the term.
District court denied a downward variance/departure and discussed policy objections to § 2G2.2, including the use of a computer enhancement.
Special conditions of supervised release were imposed: (i) no computer use without prior approval, and (ii) no camera or photographic equipment without prior approval.
Morrison objected to the camera ban; the appeal challenges the procedural reasonableness of the sentence and the legality/appropriateness of the special conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence is procedurally reasonable.	Morrison argues the court erred by not adequately analyzing policy disagreements with the guidelines.	Morrison contends overly rigid reliance on guidelines; court gave insufficient consideration to policy objections.	Sentence procedurally reasonable; court properly weighed policy concerns and explained reasoning.
Whether the district court could vary from § 2G2.2 based on policy disagreement with the child-pornography guidelines.	Morrison asserts district court erred by deferring to guidelines and not varying under policy disagreement.	Morrison argues guidelines are unjust; court may vary when empirical data or national experience supports disagreement.	District court had discretion to disagree and reasonably supported its reasoning; no abuse of discretion to deny a variance.
Whether the special conditions banning internet use and camera use were proper.	Morrison contends the camera ban and internet ban are unrelated or overly burdensome without sufficient nexus.	Court relied on the offense’s scope and risk of future misuse to justify restrictions; conditions are consistent with § 3583(d) and policy statements.	Special conditions affirmed; camera ban upheld as reasonably related and not greater deprivation than necessary; computer ban preserved with probation-approval mechanism.

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. 2007) (district courts may vary from guidelines based on policy disagreement when guidelines lack empirical foundation)
Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (U.S. 2009) (reaffirms that policy disagreements on guidelines may justify variance, not required deviation in all cases)
Henderson v. United States, 649 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2011) (district courts may vary from child-pornography guidelines based on policy disagreement; not obligated to vary if none exists)
Walser v. United States, 275 F.3d 981 (10th Cir. 2001) (special conditions like internet bans subject to probation officer approval balance public protection with rehabilitation)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (courts must provide reasons for sentences; brevity or length depends on circumstances)