USA v. Kenneth Blage, et al, No. 10-14051 (11th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-14051 MAY 17, 2011 Non-Argument Calendar JOHN LEY ________________________ CLERK D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00584-JDW-TGW-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee, versus KENNETH BLAGE, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (May 17, 2011) Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Kenneth Blage appeals his 720-month sentence, imposed after he pled guilty to two counts of production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 2251(a) and (e). Blage argues that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, because it is grossly disproportionate to the offenses he committed. On this record, we find no reversible error. The district court sentenced Blage to the statutory maximum penalty for the offenses he committed 30 years for each count of production of child pornography.1 Because the district court sentenced Blage within the limits imposed by the relevant statutes and guidelines, we cannot say the sentence imposed is disproportionate to the offenses committed, and thus it does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. United States v. Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 2006) (holding that a 140-year sentence for producing and distributing child pornography was not cruel and unusual, because the sentence was within the statutory limits, and, thus, was not disproportionate to the offense). AFFIRMED. 1 The district court determined that Blage s advisory guidelines sentence was life imprisonment, subject to the statutory maximum of 720 months. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
