United States v. Reilly, 662 F.3d 754

Reilly pled guilty to two counts of distributing child pornography and was sentenced to 151 months, within the 151–188 month Guidelines range.
Investigation revealed extensive possession and distribution of child pornography, including videos with children as young as four and messaging to groom a child for abuse.
A search of Reilly's computer showed exchanges with about fifty individuals; he met or attempted to meet individuals for sexual activities involving minors.
A plea agreement reduced charges to two counts of distribution under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2); at trial, Reilly moved for downward departure and variance based on military service and brain injury.
The district court denied the departure/variance requests and imposed the low end of the Guidelines range (151 months).
On appeal, Reilly argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable despite within-range status; the Sixth Circuit affirmed as substantively reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by denying downward departure under §5K2.0 for lack of criminal history and military service.	Reilly seeks downward departure based on lack of prior crimes and exemplary service.	The Guidelines prohibit these factors from downward departures in child-sex offenses.	No reversible error; departures for these factors are prohibited for child crimes; non-departure is not reviewable as error.
Whether a variance under §3553(a) was appropriate given Reilly's background.	Reilly argues a variance should account for military service and health history.	Variance considerations exist under §3553(a), but the district court need not adopt defendant's preferred result.	Variance considerations are within the §3553(a) framework; appellate review confirms the district court may choose a different sentence within the totality of circumstances.
Whether the 151-month sentence is substantively reasonable under the totality of circumstances.	Reilly contends the sentence is more severe than warranted given his background.	The government contends the sentence appropriately reflects the offense and deterrence needs.	The 151-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the extensive harm and Reilly's conduct.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (Guidelines start as a benchmark but remain advisory)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (appellate review respects district court's §3553(a) balancing)
Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) (deferential abuse-of-discretion review in sentencing)
United States v. Brooks, 628 F.3d 791 (6th Cir. 2011) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc; reinforces reasonableness review framework)
United States v. Holcomb, 625 F.3d 287 (6th Cir. 2010) (guidelines range as starting point for §3553(a) analysis)
United States v. Tate, 516 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2008) (reaffirms standard for substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Lanning, 633 F.3d 469 (6th Cir. 2011) (review framework for substantive reasonableness after within-range assumption)
United States v. Webb, 616 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness of sentence)
United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2008) (relation of §3553(a) factors to guideline considerations)