United States v. Strieper
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1244
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Strieper, a U.S. Navy information systems technician, joined an online forum about sexual interest in young boys and chatted with a DHS ICE confidential source (Stu) about kidnapping and abusing a child.
- Strieper and Stu planned for Stu to travel to Virginia to abduct and possibly murder a child, selecting a random four- or five-year-old once on site.
- ICE arrested Strieper at Norfolk International Airport; search of his car and home uncovered duct tape, gloves, cleaning supplies, pills, and extensive child-p pornography on electronic devices; Limewire was used to download/share material.
- A federal grand jury indicted Strieper on one count of attempted enticement and three counts related to child pornography; he pled guilty to all counts.
- On September 7, 2010, the district court sentenced Strieper to 420 months and applied two five-level enhancements (pattern of sexual abuse/exploitation of a minor; distribution of child pornography for receipt of a thing of value); Strieper objected only to the first enhancement; sentence fell within the Guidelines range.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the sentence, addressing whether the enhancements were proper and the overall substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 5-level pattern of activity enhancement applies. | Strieper argues the online communications and Stu interaction do not constitute sexual abuse/exploitation. | Strieper contends there was no identified minor victim and no direct exploitation. | Enhanced affirmed; unidentified minor allowed; pattern element satisfied by intended first-hand exploitation. |
| Whether the 5-level enhancement for distribution for receipt of something of value should apply. | Strieper argues the district court should have imposed a two-level enhancement for distribution. | Strieper did not object to the enhancement at sentencing; arguments focus on the proper level. | Five-level enhancement sustained; district court followed precedent and no plain error occurred. |
| Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable. | Strieper contends the sentence is unreasonable, especially given enticement conduct. | Strieper asserts the offense guidelines do not justify the length within the range. | Sentence within the Guidelines range for child-porn offenses; not substantively unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (criteria for procedural and substantive reasonableness of sentences)
- Layton, 564 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing factual findings and (un)preserved arguments)
- Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review framework and standard of review)
- Morace, 594 F.3d 340 (4th Cir. 2010) (preserves deference to Congress's views on child pornography crimes)
- Hecht, 470 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2006) (respectful consideration of congressional dictates in child-pornography cases)
- Rouse, 362 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2004) (whether district court can follow other circuits' reasoning on novel issues)