Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealplea
defendantappealplea

Related Cases

People v. Gadson, 19 Cal.App.4th 1700, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 219
View Case »
Prudential Equity Group, LLC v. Ajamie, 538 F.Supp.2d 605
View Case »
Commonwealth v. Mosher, 103 Mass.App.Ct. 1105, 219 N.E.3d 261 (Table), 2023 WL 5563268
View Case »
Hackett v. Village Court Associates, 602 F.Supp. 856, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 92,054
View Case »
Rodriguez v. Nielsen, 259 Neb. 264, 609 N.W.2d 368
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Glasser, 663 Fed.Appx. 180

Facts

On July 2, 2015, Sean Vincent Glasser pleaded guilty to multiple counts related to child pornography after being found in possession of a significant number of images and videos. The investigation began when Facebook reported that Glasser had uploaded an image of child pornography. A subsequent search of his computer revealed approximately fifty videos and nearly 60,000 images. Glasser sought a downward variance in his sentencing, citing personal circumstances and psychological issues, but the government argued for a sentence within the Guidelines range due to the severity of the offenses.

On July 2, 2015, Glasser pleaded guilty to one count of transportation of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1); two counts of receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2); and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4). In brief summary, on September 15, 2013, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was informed by Facebook that Glasser had uploaded an image of child pornography to his online Facebook page. Thereafter, Glasser's home computer was searched and was found to contain approximately fifty child pornography videos and 59,725 images of child pornography and child erotica.

Issue

Was Glasser's sentence of 90 months' imprisonment procedurally and substantively reasonable?

Was Glasser's sentence of 90 months' imprisonment procedurally and substantively reasonable?

Rule

A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court commits no significant procedural error and substantively reasonable if it is not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing.

A sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court committed no significant procedural error, and substantively reasonable if it is not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing.

Analysis

The court found that the District Court followed proper sentencing procedures, accurately calculated the Guidelines range, and considered Glasser's arguments for mitigation. The court noted that the District Court provided a detailed explanation for the sentence, addressing the nature of the offenses and the defendant's conduct, including the use of technology to distribute child pornography and the sheer volume of images involved.

The court found that the District Court followed proper sentencing procedures, accurately calculated the Guidelines range, and considered Glasser's arguments for mitigation. The court noted that the District Court provided a detailed explanation for the sentence, addressing the nature of the offenses and the defendant's conduct, including the use of technology to distribute child pornography and the sheer volume of images involved.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's sentence, concluding that it was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's sentence, concluding that it was both procedurally and substantively reasonable.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's sentence, finding it reasonable based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The United States prevailed in the case, as the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's sentence, finding it reasonable based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

You must be