United States v. Michael Sherman, No. 12-2847 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Sentence was not substantively unreasonable. [ December 03, 2012
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2847 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Michael William Sherman lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul ____________ Submitted: November 27, 2012 Filed: December 4, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael Sherman pleaded guilty to producing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). The presentence report calculated a Guidelines sentence of 360 months in prison, the statutory maximum. The district court1 varied downward, imposing a 300-month prison term. On appeal, Sherman argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the Guidelines, as applied to child pornography cases, lack an empirical basis upon which to formulate an appropriate sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This court has already rejected such an argument. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 563 F.3d 725, 730 (8th Cir. 2009) (assuming sentencing court may disregard childpornography Guidelines on policy grounds does not mean court must disagree with Guidelines, whether it reflects policy judgment of Congress or Commission s characteristic empirical approach). We conclude that the sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (where district court has sentenced defendant below advisory Guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that court abused its discretion in not varying downward further). Accordingly, we affirm. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
