United States v. Poulin
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4223
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Poulin was charged with receipt (2252A(a)(2)(A)) and possession (2252A(a)(5)(B)) of child pornography and pled guilty.
- The offenses occurred in Poulin’s mother’s basement where three young children resided nearby.
- A PSR set the guideline range at 151–188 months; supervised release range was 5 years to life.
- District court imposed 115-month terms and a lifetime term of supervised release with multiple conditions.
- Oral conditions included computer monitoring, filtering software, no contact with minors, and broad pornography prohibitions.
- The written judgment used ‘sexually arousing material’ instead of the oral ‘pornography’ term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court adequately address mitigating argument? | Poulin's principal mitigation was not properly addressed. | Court implicitly weighed the argument by imposing a below-guidelines term. | Remand for resentencing to address mitigation. |
| Was life imprisonment term for supervised release permissible without reasons? | Maximum life term required explanation. | Imposed term reflects offense characteristics. | Vacate life term of supervised release; remand. |
| Were two supervised-release conditions properly explained and reviewable? | Conditions restricting contact with minors and pornography lacked adequate explanation. | Conditions were standard for sex offenses. | Vacate challenged conditions; remand for justification. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Goodwin, 717 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2013) (vacated condition restricting contact with minors; need justification)
- United States v. Martin, 718 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2013) (requires addressing nonfrivolous mitigation arguments)
- United States v. Spiller, 732 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2013) (procedural sentencing error standards emphasized)
- United States v. Schroeder, 536 F.3d 746 (7th Cir. 2008) (explains need for detailed rationale in sentencing)
- United States v. Annoreno, 713 F.3d 352 (7th Cir. 2013) (de novo review of procedural sentencing issues)
- United States v. Pape, 601 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2010) (explicit discussion of mitigating arguments required)
- United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2009) (whether a court implicitly considered arguments)
- United States v. Gulley, 722 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2013) (harmless error standard applied to sentencing)
- United States v. Tovar-Pina, 713 F.3d 1143 (7th Cir. 2013) (explicit consideration of mitigation matters required)