602 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2010), 09-2134, United States v. Coopman
|Citation:||602 F.3d 814|
|Opinion Judge:||KANNE, Circuit Judge.|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brad COOPMAN, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Daniel L. Bella (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Hammond, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Kerry C. Connor, Indiana Federal Community Defenders, Inc., Hammond, IN, for Defendant-Appellant.|
|Judge Panel:||Before KANNE, WOOD, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||April 19, 2010|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Argued Feb. 11, 2010.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Brad Coopman was charged with possession of child pornography and receipt of child pornography. He pled guilty to the receipt charge without the benefit of a plea agreement. At the outset of Coopman's sentencing hearing, the district court adopted the factual findings in the pre-sentence investigation report (PSR) without objection from the parties. After the government presented its witness, Coopman offered expert witness testimony in an effort to mitigate his sentence. At the conclusion of Coopman's evidence, the district court calculated a sentencing range of 151 to 188 months' imprisonment. The court then sentenced Coopman to 151 months' incarceration and 10 years' supervised release.
Coopman now challenges his sentence by alleging that the district court improperly placed presumptive weight on the guidelines, failed to consider non-frivolous arguments, and misapplied 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Coopman also argues that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence. We affirm.
Because the issues raised in this case stem from Coopman's sentencing hearing, we need not explain in detail the circumstances surrounding his conviction. It is sufficient to note that in 2007 the Indiana State Police discovered that Coopman was using a peer-to-peer inter-net network to share three child pornography videos. After seizing his computer, the police discovered approximately thirty-five additional child pornography videos saved on his hard drive. This conduct formed the basis for Coopman's indictment and guilty plea.
In early March 2009, Coopman filed two sentencing memoranda with the district court. In one memorandum, Coopman addressed a perceived lack of empirical evidence supporting sentences derived from U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 and urged the court to give the guideline little weight in sentencing him. In the second memorandum, Coopman addressed the § 3553(a) sentencing factors. In support of his sentencing argument, Coopman included a letter on his own behalf, letters from his family, grades for a college-level course he completed while in detention, and a vitae for his psychologist, William Hillman. Coopman urged the court to adopt the mandatory minimum sentence-sixty months' imprisonment-as required by 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2).
A few days later, Coopman appeared for sentencing. As there were no objections to the PSR, the district court adopted the factual statements in the report as its findings of fact. It then heard witnesses in consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. The government first presented its witness, Lafayette Police Officer Paul Huff, who had examined Coopman's home computer and found the child pornography
videos on his hard drive. Officer Huff also testified regarding an earlier, unrelated incident involving Coopman, during which a Purdue University...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP