U.S. v. Bastian

• Decision Date: 20 August 2009
• Docket Number: No. 08-CR-1327-LRR.,08-CR-1327-LRR.
• Citation: 650 F.Supp.2d 849
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Casey BASTIAN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

650 F.Supp.2d 849

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Casey BASTIAN, Defendant.

No. 08-CR-1327-LRR.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division.

August 20, 2009.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mark A. Tremmel, U.S. Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff.

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

LINDA R. READE, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                I. INTRODUCTION................................................................ 854
                II. RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS ...............................................  854
                III. SENTENCING FRAMEWORK ....................................................  856
                IV. EVIDENTIARY RULES ........................................................  856
                   A. Generally...............................................................  856
                   B. Government Exhibits 2, 3 & 4 ...........................................  857
                V. FACTS .....................................................................  858
                   A. Defendant...............................................................  858
                   B. A.V. ...................................................................  858
                   C. Child Pornography ......................................................  858
                   D. Defendant's Hard Drive .................................................  859
                   E. Defendant's Shared File Folder .........................................  859
                VI. ISSUES ...................................................................  859
                VII. PRE-DEPARTURE ADJUSTED OFFENSE LEVEL.....................................  860
                    A. Offense Conduct for Count 2: Receipt of Child Pornography .............  860
                

                1. Distribution for receipt of a thing of value ........................  860
                         a. Analysis .........................................................  861
                         b. Application ......................................................  862
                      2. Pattern of activity involving sexual abuse or exploitation of a
                           minor ...................................................................  862
                        a. Pattern of activity ...............................................  863
                        b. Simultaneous application with § 4B1.5 ........................  863
                        c. Application .......................................................  864
                     3. Use of a computer ....................................................  864
                        a. Analysis ..........................................................  864
                        b. Application .......................................................  865
                    4. Use of 600 or more images .............................................  865
                        a. Analysis ..........................................................  865
                        b. Application .......................................................  865
                    B. Acceptance of Responsibility ..........................................  865
                       1. Objection ..........................................................  866
                       2. Conclusion .........................................................  867
                    C. Enhancement Under § 4B1.5(b)(1)...................................  867
                       1. Pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct ............  867
                       2. Cumulative to § 2G2.2(b)(5) ...................................  869
                       3. Application ........................................................  870
                VIII. CRIMINAL HISTORY CATEGORY ..............................................  870
                      A. Objection............................................................  871
                        1. Comparison of punishments..........................................  871
                        2. Perceived seriousness of the offense ..............................  872
                        3. Elements of the offense............................................  872
                        4. Level of culpability ..............................................  872
                        5. Likelihood of recidivism ..........................................  872
                     B. Conclusion ...........................................................  873
                IX. PRE-DEPARTURE ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES RANGE .......................  873
                X. UPWARD DEPARTURE ..........................................................  873
                XI. FACTORS IN 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) ......................................  874
                XII. DISPOSITION .............................................................  877
                

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is the sentencing of Defendant Casey Bastian.

II. RELEVANT PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On October 22, 2008, a grand jury returned a three-count indictment ("Indictment") (docket no. 1) against Defendant. Count 1 charges Defendant with Sexual Exploitation of a Child, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e).¹ Count 2 charges Defendant with Receipt of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (b)(1).² Count 3 charges Defendant with Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and (b)(2).³

On December 11, 2008, Defendant pled guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment before a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a plea agreement ("Plea Agreement") (docket no. 25-2). On the same date, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (docket no. 26) in which he recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant's guilty plea. On December 31, 2008, 2008 WL 5429650, the undersigned accepted Defendant's guilty plea.

On January 12, 2009, Defendant filed a Pro Se Motion (docket no. 28). In the Pro Se Motion, Defendant asked the court to appoint him a new attorney and allow him "to rescind [his] plea." Pro Se Motion at 5. On January 28, 2009, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order (docket no. 33) that granted Defendant's request for a new attorney and gave Defendant permission to have his newly appointed attorney file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

On February 17, 2009, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea ("Motion to Withdraw") (docket no. 38). On March 24, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued a second Report and Recommendation ("Second Report and Recommendation") (docket no. 50-2) in which he recommended that the undersigned deny the Motion to Withdraw. On May 6, 2009, 2009 WL 1270018, the undersigned adopted the Second Report and Recommendation and denied the Motion to Withdraw.

On April 6, 2009, the United States Probation Office ("USPO") released a draft of Defendant's Presentence Investigation Report ("PSIR"). Both parties lodged objections to the PSIR. On May 13, 2009, the USPO released a revised PSIR.

On June 4, 2009, the government filed its Sentencing Memorandum ("Gov't. Sent. Mem.") (docket no. 65). That same date, Defendant filed his Sentencing Memorandum ("Def. Sent. Mem.") (docket no. 66). On June 30, 2009, the court notified Defendant that it might depart or vary upward from his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. Notice (docket no. 68), at 1. On July 1, 2009, the government filed a Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum (docket no. 69).

On July 6, 2009, the court commenced Defendant's sentencing hearing ("Hearing"). Assistant United States Attorney Mark A. Tremmel represented the government. Attorney Christopher Cooklin represented Defendant, who was personally present. At the Hearing, the court received evidence, heard argument and listened to Defendant's allocution. Because of the complexity of the issues presented in this sentencing, the court reserved ruling pending the instant written sentencing memorandum. The court advised the parties it would take the sentencing issues under advisement, issue a written opinion and then reconvene the Hearing to impose sentence.

All contested issues in Defendant's sentencing are now fully submitted and ready for decision. On September 1, 2009, at 3:00 p.m., the court shall reconvene the Hearing and impose sentence.

III. SENTENCING FRAMEWORK

A "district court should begin [a sentencing proceeding] with a correct calculation of the [defendant's] advisory Sentencing Guidelines range." United States v. Braggs, 511 F.3d 808, 812 (8th Cir.2008). A defendant's Guidelines range "is arrived at after determining the appropriate Guidelines range and evaluating whether any traditional Guidelines departures are warranted." United States v. Washington, 515 F.3d 861, 865 (8th Cir.2008).

"[A]fter giving both parties a chance to argue for the sentence they deem appropriate, the court should consider all of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to determine whether they support the sentence requested by either party." Braggs, 511 F.3d at 812. "The district court may not assume that the Guidelines range is reasonable, but instead `must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.'" Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)); see, e.g., Nelson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 890, 892, 172 L.Ed.2d 719 (2009) ("Our cases do not allow a sentencing court to presume that a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range is reasonable.").

The district court "has substantial latitude to determine how much weight to give the various factors under § 3553(a)." United States v. Ruelas-Mendez, 556 F.3d 655, 657 (8th Cir.2009); see also United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 464 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc) ("`[I]t will be the unusual case when we reverse a district court sentence—whether within, above, or below the applicable Guidelines range—as substantively unreasonable.'") (quoting United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089, 1090 (D.C.Cir.2008)). "If the court determines that a sentence outside of the Guidelines is called for, it `must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.'" Braggs, 511 F.3d at 812 (quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597). "The sentence chosen should be adequately explained so as `to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the...