United States v. McElderry, No. 16-3618 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 130 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not considering the sentences of other similarly situated defendants. The court explained that, although sentencing-disparity arguments were properly raised to the district court, the court declined to impose a procedural requirement that a district court must compare and contrast the defendant under consideration with a similar offender who has been sentenced by another federal judge. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence.
Court Description: Per Curiam. Before Loken, Murphy, and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal Case - sentencing. District court did not abuse its discretion in failing to consider the sentences of other similarly situated defendants. Although the sentence-disparity arguments were properly raised in the district court, there is no procedural requirement that a district judge must compare and contrast the defendant under consideration with a similar offenders sentenced by a different judge; the district court did not abuse its discretion and imposed a substantively reasonable sentence.
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.