United States v. Bordman, No. 17-2395 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's 600 month sentence after he pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a child and possession of child pornography. The court held that the district court did not dismiss defendant's history of victimization; defendant's within-the-advisory-guidelines sentence was not substantively unreasonable where the district court conducted an individualized assessment and considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $3,000 in restitution to one of the victims; and the district court did not err by imposing two conditions of supervised release related to his use of pornography and erotica.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case -Sentencing. The district court's comment at sentencing regarding the "reported abuse" defendant suffered as a child did not indicate the court was rejecting the information; the court's statement that there was no cause and effect relationship between suffering sexual abuse as a child and becoming an abuser was not contrary to any evidence in the case; defendant's 600-month sentence was within the advisory guidelines range and he had not rebutted the presumption that the sentence is reasonable; further, the court conducted the required individualized assessment based on the facts presented and addressed defendant's proffered information on the 3553(a) factors; the court did not err in awarding the victim of a known child pornography series $3,000 in restitution as this determination considered a variety of factors, including the egregious nature of the video, and is consistent with this court's prior decisions on restitution in these situations; special conditions concerning possession of pornography, entry into places where such materials can be purchased or viewed and limits on defendant's operation or use of certain listed items are affirmed.
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.