United States v. Timothy DeFoggi
878 F.3d 1102
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Timothy DeFoggi was convicted of four counts of accessing with intent to view child pornography and one count of engaging in a child-exploitation enterprise; this court affirmed the accessing convictions but reversed the enterprise conviction and remanded for resentencing.
- At resentencing the district court imposed 75 months on each of the four affirmed counts, to run consecutively, totaling 300 months (same total as original sentence).
- DeFoggi was an active user of "PedoBook," a Tor-hidden child‑pornography site; he exchanged messages expressing interest in rape and murder of infants and solicited violent material.
- The district court found he sought the most violent pornography directed at the youngest children and emphasized protection of society as the overriding sentencing factor.
- DeFoggi appealed the resentencing, raising Eighth Amendment disproportionality, due process/vindictiveness, and substantive‑reasonableness challenges under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Issues
| Issue | DeFoggi's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment - cruel and unusual punishment (gross disproportionality) | 300‑month total sentence is grossly disproportionate to his crimes | Sentence reflects gravity, culpability, and societal harm; justified by offense conduct | Affirmed — no inference of gross disproportionality; Eighth Amendment claim rejected |
| Due process — consideration of PedoBook chats and potential vindictiveness on remand | Court improperly relied on chat conduct tied to reversed enterprise conviction; resentencing was vindictive | Court did not rely on a finding of acting "in concert;" total sentence not greater than original, so no presumption of vindictiveness | Affirmed — no due process violation or vindictiveness shown |
| Substantive reasonableness under § 3553(a) | Court overweighted fantasy messages, Tor use, and victim harm when imposing sentence | District court permissibly prioritized protection of society and weighed factors within its discretion | Affirmed — sentence not an abuse of discretion or substantively unreasonable |
| Sentencing procedures on remand (reimposition of same total) | Reimposition after partial reversal violates due process or is punitive | Prior precedent permits equal or lesser total sentence on remand; no evidence of punitive intent | Affirmed — remand sentence lawful where total ≤ original and no vindictiveness shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. DeFoggi, 839 F.3d 701 (8th Cir. 2016) (prior opinion reversing enterprise conviction and recounting offense conduct)
- United States v. Shelabarger, 770 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 2014) (two‑step Eighth Amendment gross‑disproportionality framework)
- United States v. Lee, 625 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of constitutional sentencing challenges)
- United States v. Manning, 738 F.3d 937 (8th Cir. 2014) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Weis, 487 F.3d 1148 (8th Cir. 2007) (definition of cruel and unusual as grossly disproportionate)
- United States v. Evans, 314 F.3d 329 (8th Cir. 2002) (no presumption of vindictiveness where remand sentence ≤ original)
- United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374 (8th Cir. 2009) (district court has wide latitude in weighing § 3553(a) factors)