Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Coffey

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division

November 15, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
KTTTRIDGE COFFEY, Defendant.

          OPINION

          Robert G. Doumar, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On November 10, 2016, this Court sentenced Kittridgc Coffey ("Defendant") to a term of imprisonment of 48 months. This judgment represents a downward variance from the Sentencing Guidelines, This opinion elaborates on the Court's reasons for this downward variance and is to be filed simultaneously with the sentencing judgment order.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On April 6, 2016, Defendant was named in a four-count Indictment. ECF No. 3. Counts One through Three charged Defendant with Distribution of Images of Minors Engaging in Sexually Explicit Conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2). Count Four charged Defendant with Possession of Images of Minors Engaging in Sexually Explicit Conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(4)(B). On July 7, 2016, Defendant appeared before this Court and pled guilty to Count Four, pursuant to a written pica agreement with the Government. ECF No. 16.

         The Presentence Report ("PSR") prepared by the Probation Office determined that Defendant's total offense level was 33. ECF No. 25, at 15-16. This offense level incorporates several enhancements that substantially raised the offense level above the base offense level of 18. Defendant received enhancements for (1) material involving a prepubescent minor, (pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(2)); (2) distribution for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value, but not for pecuniary gain, (pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(B)); (3) material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence, (pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4)); (4) the use of a computer, (pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(6)); and (5) having more than 600 images, (pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D)). Id. at 8. For purposes of guideline calculations, each video in the possession of Defendant is counted as 75 images. USSG § 2G2.2, Application Note 4(B)(ii). The PSR determined that Defendant had 1, 923 images in his possession. Id. at 16.

         Because Defendant had a criminal history score of zero, his criminal history category was determined to be I. Id. With a total offense level of 33 and a criminal history category of I, the Guidelines recommended a sentence of 135 to 168 months. Id. at 15. A sentencing hearing was held on November 10, 2016.

         II. DISCUSSION

         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).

         A. The Sentencing Guidelines

         The Sentencing Guidelines covering the non-production of child pornography seem to solely be concerned with the seriousness of the offense and the need for deterrence. However, this appears to be at the expense of differentiating between prototypical non-production child pornography offenses and more egregious offenses involving production of child pornography. Section 2G2.2 of the Guidelines requires this Court to significantly increase Defendant's base offense level of 18 because of several enhancements-many tied to the technology used in the offense-that now apply in the vast majority of cases of possession, receipt, or distribution of child pornography. This is especially so now that "non-production child pornography offenses have become almost exclusively Internet-enabled crimes."[1] United States Sentencing Commission, Executive Summary, Report to the Congress: Federal Child Pornography Offenses (Dec. 2012) ("2012 Report to Congress"), at ii. According to another study carried out by the Sentencing Commission using data from 2011, 97 percent of non-production child pornography cases involve a computer, 95 percent involve a victim under 12 years, 79 percent involve violent images, and 70 percent involved at least 600 images. See United States Sentencing Commission, Use of Guidelines and Specific Offense Characteristics. Fiscal Year 2011, 41-A2.[2] See also Executive Summary. 2012 Report to Congress, xi (citing similar numbers-96.2 percent for use of a computer, 96.1 percent for a victim under 12, 74.2 percent for sado-masochistic images, and 96.9 percent for the calculation of image quantity-for the fiscal year 2010). Defendant received all of these enhancements. Yet, because these enhancements apply in the vast majority of cases, these enhancements, however justifiable in the abstract, do little to differentiate Defendant's conduct from other non-production cases.[3]

         B. The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors Section 3553(a) requires this Court to consider factors in addition to the need for deterrence in order to arrive at a sentence "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to comply with the purposes of §3553(a)(2). Section 3553(a) provides in the relevant subsections that The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider-

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed-
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.