USA v. Michael Alan Reaid, No. 11-11553 (11th Cir. 2012)
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[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED ________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-11553 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FEB 2, 2012 JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 4:10-cr-00042-SPM-WCS-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MICHAEL ALAN REAID, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ________________________ (February 2, 2012) Before CARNES, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Michael Reaid appeals the substantive reasonableness of his 97-month sentence, imposed within the applicable guideline range, after pleading guilty to one count of receiving and distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1). On appeal, Reaid argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it was calculated pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2. He claims the enhancements to § 2G2.2 are unsupported by empirical data and result in irrational sentences, and § 2G2.2 is thus fundamentally incompatible with the sentencing requirements and purposes under18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). After review, we affirm Reaid s sentence.1 Reaid s 97-month sentence is substantively reasonable. We have previously held that § 2G2.2 adequately takes into account empirical data and national experience. See United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1201 n.15 (11th Cir. 2008). We also noted the child pornography guidelines reflect Congress s longstanding concern for recidivism in [child pornography] cases. Id. Moreover, Reaid s sentence is reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances. The district court stated that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors, see United States v. Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1281 (11th Cir. 2007), and the 1 We review the reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 591 (2007). 2 court noted that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offense and the need for adequate deterrence. The court also imposed a sentence at the bottom of the guideline range based on Reaid s arguments in mitigation. Reaid has not met his burden to show an abuse of discretion. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
