Sentencing — reasonableness

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — reasonableness

A 1380-month sentence for multiple child pornography offenses is not unreasonable, despite the sexual abuse the defendant suffered as a child.

“Hodge’s favored approach would turn sentencing courts’ discussions of the §3553(a) factors into checklist exercises, depriving judges of their discretion in sifting through large amounts of evidence to determine which items are most relevant. The Supreme Court has cautioned against such a checklist approach, reminding reviewing courts that ‘[t]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under §3553(a).’ Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court determined that the most noteworthy aspects of Dr. Cady’s testimony for mitigation purposes were his statements that Hodge suffered from pornography addiction, childhood sexual abuse, and childhood exposure to pornography. That the district court did not also discuss Dr. Cady’s testimony concerning the effects of Hodge’s premature sexualization or his views of Hodge’s prospects for rehabilitation does not rise to the level of procedural error.”

12-2458 U.S. v. Hodge

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Young, J., Tinder, J.