United States v. Richard Bistline
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13192
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Richard Bistline pled guilty to possessing 305 images and 56 videos of child pornography, many depicting 8–10-year-old girls being raped.
- The Sentencing Guidelines recommended 63–78 months’ imprisonment; the district court originally sentenced him to one night in lockup and ten years’ supervised release.
- This Court vacated that sentence in United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2012), finding it substantively unreasonable and remanded for a proper § 3553(a) analysis.
- On remand the district court again imposed one night’s confinement, extended home confinement to three years, and otherwise declined to impose a Guidelines sentence.
- The government appealed the second sentence, arguing it remained substantively unreasonable and asking for reassignment for resentencing due to the district judge’s stated unwillingness to impose a prison term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable | Gov: The sentence is substantively unreasonable under § 3553(a); court ignored Guidelines and serious factors | Bistline: District court properly weighed mitigating factors (age, health, tech issues) to justify below-Guidelines sentence | Court: Sentence is substantively unreasonable; district court abused its discretion by minimizing seriousness and not treating Guidelines as starting point |
| Whether the district court erred by failing to use the Guidelines as the starting point | Gov: Court failed to treat Guidelines as initial benchmark as required | Bistline: Court legitimately questioned validity/applicability of child-pornography Guidelines and specific enhancements | Court: District court repeatedly failed to treat Guidelines as starting point and did not adequately justify rejecting them |
| Whether district court gave excessive weight to defendant’s age/health and impermissible mitigating factors | Gov: Court overemphasized age/health and technological explanations, which do not justify the sentence | Bistline: Age, poor health, and lack of sophistication justify leniency | Court: Age/health and tech arguments do not justify the lenient sentence given the offense seriousness |
| Whether reassignment for resentencing is warranted | Gov: Reassignment needed because judge stated he would not send Bistline to prison and cannot set aside prior views | Bistline: Implicitly opposes reassignment; judge can follow appellate guidance | Court: Reassignment granted due to judge’s expressed inability to impose a prison term impartially |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2012) (prior opinion vacating original sentence and explaining proper § 3553(a) analysis)
- United States v. Camiscione, 591 F.3d 823 (6th Cir. 2010) (stressing importance of general deterrence in child-pornography context)
- United States v. Shaw, 707 F.3d 666 (6th Cir. 2013) (standard for substantive-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Moreland, 703 F.3d 976 (7th Cir. 2012) (elderly/ill defendants do not automatically avoid prison; adequate medical care available in federal prisons)
- United States v. Garcia-Robles, 640 F.3d 159 (6th Cir. 2011) (factors for reassignment of cases for resentencing)
- Bercheny v. Johnson, 633 F.2d 473 (6th Cir. 1980) (reassignment considerations)