United States v. Robinson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3879
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Robinson pled guilty to knowingly possessing over 7100 images of child pornography, including depictions of prepubescent sexual violence.
- Guidelines calculation yielded a range of 78–97 months; district court imposed one day custody, five years of supervised release, and $100 special assessment.
- Prior to sentencing, Dr. Sugrue conducted psychological testing; findings described Robinson as low risk and not a pedophile, influencing the court’s reasoning for a downward variance.
- Government objected to the variance, arguing the court erred procedurally and substantively by mischaracterizing the report and the offense.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding the variance was substantively unreasonable and the court failed to justify it adequately under § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Robinson’s sentence rested on erroneous factual characterizations. | Robinson argues the court’s reliance on the report and mischaracterizations invalidates the sentence. | Sentence procedurally reasonable despite some interpretive disputes. |
| Substantive reasonableness of variance | Court properly considered offender’s history and psychology to justify variance. | Variance based on predictors of future behavior misaligned with the offense; factors like employment are discouraged. | Variance substantively unreasonable; vacated and remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (requires adequate justification for variance and explains reasonableness review post-Booker)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (limits presumption of reasonableness for non-Guidelines sentences; preserves district-court discretion)
- United States v. Phinazee, 515 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2008) (affirms appellate respect for district courts' sentencing decisions while correcting errors)
- United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (limits proportionality review; emphasizes substantial deference to variance justification)
- United States v. Camiscione, 591 F.3d 823 (6th Cir. 2010) (discusses disparities and the role of guidelines in child-pornography cases)
- United States v. Stall, 581 F.3d 276 (6th Cir. 2009) (upholds more restrictive supervised-release structures under plain-error review)
- United States v. Christman, 607 F.3d 1110 (6th Cir. 2010) (focuses deterrence emphasis on production/distribution rather than isolated possession)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (emphasizes deferential substantive review but not abdication of discretion)
- United States v. Goldberg, 491 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2007) (deterrence rationale in child-pornography sentencing)