United States v. Bevins, No. 15-3986 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his 300 month sentence after pleading guilty to production of child pornography, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. The court explained that grouping of the counts was irrelevant as a practical matter and harmless error. The court concluded that defendant's total offense level and Guidelines range were correctly calculated where the district court applied a five-level enhancement under USSG 4B1.5(b)(1) for a repeat and dangerous sex offender, a four-level enhancement under USSG 2G2.1(b)(4) for material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct, and a three-level offense under USSG 3D1.4 because defendant stipulated to the conduct that gave rise to the dismissed production and attempted production counts. The court also concluded that the district court's brief explanation of the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) sentencing factors was adequate, and the sentence imposed was not unreasonably high. Because defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Chief Judge Riley, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentencing. Following guilty plea to producing, receiving, and possessing child pornography, district court varied downward from 720 months to 300 months imprisonment. Enhancements under Guidelines secs. 2G2.2(b)(4) and (b)(5) and 4B1.5(b)(1) had no impact of the Guidelines range. Any challenge to the grouping counts were harmless error. Enhancement for being a repeat and dangerous sex offender under section 4B1.5(b)(1) does not require a prior conviction; enhancement under sec. 2G2.1(b)(4) for sadistic or masochistic conduct were warranted; and the production counts were properly grouped under section 3D1.4 because each production is considered a separate and distinct harm. As to unobjected to challenge to the adequacy of the district court's explanation of the section 3553(a) factors, the district court's explanation, though brief, was not so plainly inadequate as to warrant reversal. The sentence, a downward variance of 420 months, was not unreasonably high.
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.