USA v. James O'Quinn, No. 10-15809 (11th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS U.S. ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AUG 4, 2011 JOHN LEY CLERK No. 10-15809 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cr-00021-SPM-AK-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JAMES MICHAEL O QUINN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida ________________________ (August 4, 2011) Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: James O Quinn appeals his sentence of 108 months of imprisonment for receiving and distributing child pornography. 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1). O Quinn challenges the two-level enhancement of his sentence for distributing child pornography, United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) (2009), and the denial of his corresponding request for a two-level reduction of his sentence on the ground that he intended only to solicit and receive the pornographic materials, id. § 2G2.2(b)(1). We affirm. The district court did not err when it enhanced O Quinn s sentence for distributing child pornography and denied his corresponding request for a reduction of his sentence. O Quinn pleaded guilty to Count One of his indictment that charged him with knowingly receiv[ing] and distribut[ing] and attempt[ing] to receive and distribute child pornography, and he was subject to a two-level increase of his sentence for distributing that contraband, id. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F). The commentary to section 2G2.2 provides that distribution includes posting material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor on a website for public viewing. Id. cmt. n.1. O Quinn admitted during his sentencing hearing that he ma[d]e [the] [child pornography] files [on his computer] available for public viewing through a file-sharing program called Limewire. We AFFIRM O Quinn s sentence. 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.
