United States v. Reingold
731 F.3d 204
| 2d Cir. | 2013Background
- Reingold pled guilty to distributing child pornography in the EDNY; government appeals the five-year minimum and Guideline calculations.
- District court sentenced Reingold to 30 months, five years’ supervised release, and a $100 assessment, opting against the five-year minimum.
- Court held that applying the five-year minimum to Reingold would violate the Eighth Amendment due to immaturity.
- District court provided extensive findings and declined to apply certain Guideline enhancements; case remanded for resentencing.
- This court remands to vacate the sentence and resentence consistently with proportionality and Guideline rulings in this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment and five-year minimum | Government contends mandatory minimum is constitutional. | Reingold argues the minimum is grossly disproportionate given immaturity. | Five-year minimum not grossly disproportionate; remand for resentencing within statutory range. |
| Proportionality framework application | Graham/Miller categorical rules apply to proportionality. | Harmelin/Graham Harmelin framework governs case-specific review. | Case-specific Harmelin analysis governs; no categorical rule sweep for five years. |
| Guidelines enhancements validity | District court erred by not applying enhancements (b(5), b(6), b(3)(F)). | Defendant contends there was no error or harmless error. | Remand required to recalculate with applicable enhancements; neither side foreclosed review. |
| Pattern enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(5) | Two qualifying acts of sexual abuse/exploitation warrant enhancement. | Minor status or proximity negates pattern enhancement. | Pattern enhancement applies if two qualifying acts exist, regardless of timing or minority at acts. |
| Distribution enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) | Enhancement applies where distribution contact occurred, regardless of intent. | No double counting; base offense already accounts for distribution harms. | Distribution enhancement applies; not impermissible double counting. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (categorical rule for juvenile nonhomicide punishments; framework for proportionality review)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (case-specific proportionality and deference to legislatures)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (U.S. 1983) (first major case recognizing gross disproportionality in certain crimes)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (U.S. 2003) (discussed proportionality for Three Strikes-like sentences)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (S. Ct. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles in homicide cases not required)
- Ramos, 685 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2012) (rejection of Eighth Amendment challenge to longer minimum for child pornography)
- United States v. Johnson, 221 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2000) (double counting doctrine re: computer-use enhancement)
- United States v. C.R., 792 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (district court background and analysis guiding remand)