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

defendantsentencing guidelinesdeterrence
defendantsentencing guidelines

Related Cases

Taylor v. Com. of Pa., 686 F.Supp. 492
View Case »
United States v. Graf, 827 F.3d 581
View Case »
Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898
View Case »
Kronisch v. U.S., 531 U.S. 1078, 121 S.Ct. 775 (Mem), 148 L.Ed.2d 673, 69 USLW 3366, 69 USLW 3443, 69 USLW 3456
View Case »
Pyo v. Stockton State College, 603 F.Supp. 1278, 37 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 493, 23 Ed. Law Rep. 900
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Midgett, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2016 WL 542141

Facts

On May 11, 2015, Richard Midgett was indicted on multiple counts related to child pornography, including distribution and possession. He pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography on November 3, 2015. The Presentence Report indicated that Midgett had a total offense level of 34, which included several enhancements due to the nature of the material he possessed, including images involving prepubescent minors and a significant number of images. Despite these enhancements, Midgett had no prior criminal history.

On May 11, 2015, Defendant was named in a seven count indictment charging him with: (1) one count of Distribution of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2); (2) three counts of Receipt of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) (Counts Two-Four) and (2) three counts of Possession of Child Pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) (Counts Five-Seven). ECF No. 1. On November 3, 2015, Defendant pled guilty Count One of the Indictment: Possession of Child Pornography. ECF No. 18.

Issue

Did the court appropriately apply a downward variance from the sentencing guidelines in light of the circumstances of the case and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities?

Did the court appropriately apply a downward variance from the sentencing guidelines in light of the circumstances of the case and the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities?

Rule

The court must calculate the Guidelines range and then consider the individual circumstances of the defendant in light of the statutory sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

To determine an appropriate sentence this Court “must first calculate the Guidelines range, and then consider what sentence is appropriate for the individual defendant in light of the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), explaining any variance from the former with reference to the latter.” Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 351 (2009).

Analysis

The court analyzed the severity of Midgett's offense and the need for deterrence but also recognized that the enhancements applied to his offense level were common in non-production child pornography cases. The court noted that Midgett's conduct, while reprehensible, did not involve physical abuse of children, and that a sentence within the guidelines would create unwarranted disparities compared to similar cases.

The Court must consider 'the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.' The extensive disparities in sentences given for non-production child pornography offenses under USSG § 2G2.2 has been well-documented by the Sentencing Commission and others.

Conclusion

The court concluded that a sentence of 99 months was sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).

For these reasons, the Court imposed a sentence of ninety-nine (99) months of imprisonment, which this Court found to be sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the need for a sentence as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).

Who won?

Richard Midgett prevailed in the sense that the court granted a downward variance from the sentencing guidelines, resulting in a significantly lower sentence than recommended. The court's reasoning focused on the need to avoid unwarranted disparities in sentencing for similar offenses.

Defendant's conduct was reprehensible, however, the Court determined that a sentence below the guidelines would be sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the need for a sentence as defined by § 3553(a)(2).

You must be