United States v. Vado
683 F. App'x 83
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Matthew Vado pled guilty to a 10-count indictment: eight counts of producing child pornography, one count of receiving, and one count of possessing child pornography.
- District Court sentenced Vado to 30 years’ imprisonment; mandatory minimum was 15 years and the Guidelines range recommended life imprisonment.
- The court reviewed the PSR, parties’ submissions, psychological reports, victim impact statements, and sample images.
- Relevant aggravating facts: 13 identified minor victims (including a 9-year-old), extortion of victims to obtain images, planning/deliberation, and risk of reoffending.
- Vado argued (1) procedural error: the court failed to address certain mitigation arguments supporting a 15-year sentence; and (2) substantive unreasonableness: 30 years was greater than necessary given his prior low jail time, post-arrest conduct, psychiatric reports, flaws in Guidelines, and potential civil commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.) | Defendant's Argument (Vado) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence explanation | District Court adequately explained its basis and considered relevant materials | Court failed to sufficiently respond to three specific mitigation arguments (civil commitment risk, exemplary custody conduct, flawed Guidelines) | No procedural error; court considered arguments and provided a reasonable, detailed explanation (affirmed) |
| Substantive reasonableness of 30-year sentence | Sentence is within permissible range given seriousness, deterrence, incapacitation needs | 30 years is greater than necessary given mitigating factors and potential civil commitment | Sentence reasonable and within permissible range; affirmed as not substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bonilla, 618 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (district court need not respond point-by-point but must show consideration of arguments)
- United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
- United States v. Legros, 529 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard of review for sentencing appeals)
- United States v. Brown, 843 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2016) (upholding lengthy sentence for production of child pornography)