United States v. Shouse, No. 13-30134 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of production of child pornography and one count of penalties for registered sex offenders. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(4) for sexual exploitation of a minor by production of sexually explicit visual or printed material that portrayed sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting a consecutive sentence; the court rejected defendant's general plea for reconsideration of the court's sentencing review standard; and the sentence was reasonable where the district court explained that it had conducted a thorough review of defendant's claims and the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and it demonstrated sufficient consideration of all of the supporting evidence provided to the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a sentence imposed following the defendant’s guilty plea to one count of production of child pornography and one count of penalties for registered sex offenders. Applying case law interpreting identical language in United States Sentencing Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(4), the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying an enhancement under § 2G2.1(b)(4) for sexual exploitation of a minor by production of sexually explicit visual or printed material that portrayed sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the sentence to run consecutively to the defendant’s undischarged state sentence. The panel rejected the defendant’s plea for reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit’s sentencing review standard and his argument that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence by ignoring his arguments in favor of leniency and downward sentencing adjustments.
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.