United States v. Burns, No. 15-2660 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 97 months in prison. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing enhancements for "sadistic" material under USSG 2G2.2(b)(4) and for "use of a computer" under USSG 2G2.2(b)(6) where defendant indisputably used a computer to morph and possess images that were "per se sadistic" under Eighth Circuit precedent; the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a five-level enhancement under USSG 2G2.2(b)(5) because defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor; the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3533(a) factors and set forth a reasoned basis for its sentence; and the mitigating evidence did not outweigh the damage that has been done and the unique nature of the conduct involved in this case. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its substantial sentencing discretion in imposing a within-guidelines sentence and affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Beam and Smith, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. The district court did not err in imposing enhancements under Guidelines Sec. 2G2.2(b)(4) for possession of sadistic materials or Sec. 2G2.2(b)(6) for use of a computer in this child pornography prosecution; no error in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2G2.2(b)(5) for engaging in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor as defendant admitted engaging in illegal sexual contact with a minor on several occasions over a period of at least four years; within-range sentence of 97 months was not substantively unreasonable as the court considered the 3553(a) factors, explained at length the serious impact of defendant's offense and determined that defendant's mitigating evidence did not outdo the harm done and the unique nature of the conduct involved in the case.
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.