United States v. Oehne, 698 F.3d 119

Oehne pled guilty, with two counts: production (18 U.S.C. §2251(a)) and distribution (18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(2)) of child pornography.
MV, the minor victim, was abused by Oehne for about two years starting when she was eight.
Oehne admitted to photographing and distributing the abuse; district court sentenced him to 540 months’ imprisonment and life supervised release.
Oehne moved to suppress statements made at arrest and physical evidence from a search of his residence; district court denied.
On appeal, the Second Circuit held Oehne did not unambiguously invoke his right to counsel or his right to remain silent; the sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable; judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err in denying suppression of statements and residence-search evidence?	Government argued statements/evidence were admissible.	Oehne argued he invoked Miranda rights and suppression was required.	No error; suppression denial affirmed.
Did Oehne unambiguously invoke the right to counsel or the right to remain silent?	Government contends no unambiguous invocation occurred.	Oehne argues he invoked his rights by mentioning a lawyer in another case and by not signing the form.	Oehne did not unambiguously invoke Miranda rights; waiver occurred subsequently.
Was the sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable under 3553(a) and Dorvee?	Government asserts district court properly calculated and explained sentence; Dorvee distinguished.	Oehne urges the sentence near the maximum is unwarranted given offense considerations.	Sentence was reasonable under totality of circumstances; affirmed.

Dorvee v. United States, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010) (limits on child-pornography sentences near the statutory maximum must fit 3553(a) factors)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (S. Ct. 2010) (unambiguous invocation required to invoke right to remain silent)
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (1991) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense-specific; not automatically triggered by unrelated matter)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (requires procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences under 3553(a))