United States v. Sean Glasser
663 F. App'x 180
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Sean Vincent Glasser pleaded guilty to four child-pornography counts (transportation, two counts of receipt, possession) after Facebook reported he uploaded an image; his computer contained ~50 videos and 59,725 images/child erotica downloaded via FrostWire.
- Guideline calculation: total offense level 34, CHC I => advisory range 151–188 months; mandatory minimum five years applicable.
- At sentencing Glasser sought a downward variance to the 60-month mandatory minimum based on remorse, childhood trauma/bullying, psychological issues, post-arrest treatment, family support, low risk of recidivism per his psychologist, and criticism of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2.
- The government sought a Guidelines-range sentence, emphasizing volume of images, peer-to-peer file sharing, alleged use of encryption, and long-term involvement.
- District Court granted a substantial variance but sentenced Glasser to 90 months (61 months below the Guidelines minimum), with 20 years supervised release and other financial obligations; Glasser appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Glasser) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness — factual findings | District Court relied on clearly erroneous facts (mischaracterized FrostWire as "advanced technology"; overstated significance of image volume). | Court correctly considered FrostWire as a file‑sharing program that facilitated mass accumulation; District Court considered Glasser's mitigation. | Affirmed — no plain procedural error; court reasonably relied on volume, technology, and types of images and gave meaningful consideration to mitigation. |
| Procedural reasonableness — consideration of §3553(a) factors | Court failed to meaningfully consider Glasser’s childhood trauma, mental health, remorse, rehabilitation, low recidivism risk, and challenges to §2G2.2. | Court heard testimony, reviewed records, granted a large downward variance, and explained its reasons. | Affirmed — District Court demonstrated meaningful consideration of §3553(a) factors. |
| Substantive reasonableness | Sentence greater than necessary; procedural errors infected substantive judgment (risk of sentencing based solely on abhorrence of crime). | Sentence is within the broad range of reasonable outcomes; court exercised discretion and explained its rationale. | Affirmed — substantive sentence not an abuse of discretion; reasonable given court’s findings. |
| Standard of review / preservation | (Implicit) Challenges require preserved objections; here reviewed under plain‑error/abuse of discretion standards. | (Implicit) Same. | Court applied plain‑error review for procedural claims and abuse‑of‑discretion review for substantive reasonableness; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2014) (preservation and plain-error framework for sentencing objections)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review and reasonableness standards for variances)
- United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (procedural‑reasonableness requirements for sentencing explanations)
- United States v. Olhovsky, 562 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2009) (warning against sentencing courts basing sentence solely on abhorrence of offense)
- United States v. Grober, 624 F.3d 592 (3d Cir. 2010) (district court not required to vary based on policy disagreement with §2G2.2)