Case ID: f-appx_528/html/0686-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abimael CASTELLON-LAUREANO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-3503.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 10, 2013.
    Filed: Aug. 29, 2013.
    Michelle E. Jones, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Abimael Castellon-Laureano, Faribault, MN, pro se, Katherine M. Menendez, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before LOKEN, BEAM, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Abimael Castellon-Laureano appeals his sentence of 300 months following his guilty plea to production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251. While the calculated United States Sentencing Guidelines range for Castellon-Laureano’s offense was life imprisonment, the statutory maximum under § 2251 is thirty years imprisonment, effectively giving Castellon-Laureano a 360-month Guidelines range for this offense. Pursuant to the plea agreement and under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, Castellon-Laureano cooperated with government agents, and the prosecution subsequently recommended a sixty-month reduction from the 360-month Guidelines range. The district court imposed the recommended 300-month sentence, to be served concurrently to his 130-month term of imprisonment in Minnesota state prison for sexual abuse arising out of the same underlying conduct as the instant pornography offense.

On appeal, Castellon-Laureano argues the sentence is substantively unreasonable and within the context of that argument, asserts that the district court should not have afforded deference to the pornography Guidelines. However, on appeal, we will not consider the argument that the district court erred by refusing to disregard the pornography Guidelines on empirical grounds. United States v. Muhlenbruch, 682 F.3d 1096, 1102 (8th Cir.2012). And, we find that the below-Guidelines range sentence is substantively reasonable. See United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010, 1022 (8th Cir.2011) (holding that where a district court has sentenced below the Guidelines range, it is extremely rare to find that an abuse of discretion has occurred). Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed. 
      
      . The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.