United States v. Stong, No. 14-1337 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseFour boys, ages 10 to 12, visited and occasionally stayed at Stong’s apartment. Officers executed a search warrant, seized computers and a camera memory card from Stong’s living room, and found pornographic images and videos of the boys and other children. At trial, parents identified the boys in redacted versions of the child pornography. One parent, who had known Stong for 10 years, identified Stong’s voice from the videos. The parent, who had cleaned Stong’s apartment, and the officer who conducted the search, identified it as the place where two pornographic images were taken. Stong was convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor, 18 U.S.C. 2251(a), and possession of child pornography, 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B); (b)(2). The presentence report recommended and the court applied sentencing enhancements because Stong’s offense involved a sexual act or sexual contact (USSG 2G2.1(b)(2)(A)) and because Stong’s offense involved material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence (USSG 2G2.1(b)(4)), resulting in advisory life imprisonment. Relying on his advanced age and poor health, Stong requested a downward departure. The district court sentenced Stong to 110 years’ imprisonment, the sum of the statutory maximum sentences for his convictions. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. No error in admitting videos found on defendant's computers and the district court did not err in rejecting defendant's request for a limiting instruction concerning the videos; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for sexual exploitation of a minor and possession of child pornography; any error in imposing enhancements under Guidelines Sec. 2G2.1(b)(2)(A) or 2G2.1(b)(4)would be harmless since defendant's offense level exceeded the offense level cap with or without the enhancements; no error in denying defendant's request for a downward departure under 5K2.0(b) and (c); 110-year sentence was not substantively unreasonable; no error in denying defendant's request for a downward variance based on his age and health. [ December 09, 2014
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.