United States Sixth Circuit

A sentence for possession of child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court's use of a U.S.S.G. application note's 75:1 ratio for determining the number of images contained within a single video was not arbitrary and did not result in an unreasonable sentence for defendant; and 2) the district court did not err when it found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child pornography possessed by defendant not only depicted minors under the age of twelve but also depicted sadistic or masochistic conduct.

Appellate Information

• Decided 10/22/2007
• Published 10/22/2007

Judges

• Before: BATCHELDER and GILMAN, Circuit Judges;  STAFFORD, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  George A. Katchmer, Jr., L. Patrick Mulligan & Associates, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant.  Benjamin C. Glassman, Assistant United States Attorney, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  George A. Katchmer, Jr., L. Patrick Mulligan & Associates, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellant.   Laura I. Clemmens, Assistant United States Attorney, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee.