UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 15-20482

HON. AVERN COHN

CHRISTOPHER CATLETT, 

Defendant.

___________________________________/

SENTENCING DECISION1

This is a criminal case. The Court has sentenced defendant to a custodial term

of 72 months, followed by 10 years of supervised release, and payment of a $100.00

special assessment on his guilty plea to Distribution of Child Pornography. The costs of

incarceration and supervised release are waived. Restitution is deferred for further

consideration. Forfeiture has been ordered for property used in commission of

defendant’s criminal conduct. 

On August 4, 2015, defendant, by Information, was charged with:

• Distribution of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§2252A(a)(2)

• Receipt of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§2252A(a)(2) 

• Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§2252A(a)(5)(B)

On February 24, 2016, the government and defendant signed a Rule 11 Plea

Agreement which essentially provides:

1

This is a revision of the Court’s comments on sentencing on September 28,

2016.

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 250
• defendant will plead guilty to Distribution of Child Pornography, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(2)

• the other charges against defendant will be dismissed

• the guideline range for the offense of conviction is 151 to 188

months

• the offense of conviction carries a mandatory minimum of 60

months

• the term of supervised release is no less than five (5) years

• defendant will pay a special assessment of $100.00

• the Court will determine the amount of required restitution

• a description of the items to be forfeited

• defendant is required to register as a sex offender under state and federal

registration requirements

• defendant waives his appeal rights

The Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea states:

In or around January, 2015, a special agent (SA) with the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) received a copy of an

online account from a foreign law enforcement authority that

has been investigating child pornography activities. The

contents of the online account showed that defendant

Christopher Catlett had been posting child pornography

materials to a website between October 2013, and

December 2014. A federal search warrant was executed at

defendant’s residence in Oak Park, Michigan, and several

pieces of electronic media were removed from the home,

including several laptops, an iPad, thumb drives and external

storage devices. Over 600 images and videos depicting

child pornography were found. The images and videos

depicted minor, pre-pubescent children engaged in sexual

acts with adults. Some of the images depicted bestiality and

children engaged in sadomasochistic scenarios.

Catlett obtained the child pornography from the internet and

used the internet to distribute child pornography to other

internet users. The internet is a means and facility of

interstate or foreign commerce. Oak Park, Michigan, is in

the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.

Defendant pled guilty on February 25, 2016. The colloquy at the plea hearing

2

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 251
reflects the customary questions and answers at such a hearing, and particularly:

• the defendant acknowledged his guilt

• the defendant acknowledged that he engaged in the distribution of

child pornography over the internet from his home in Oak Park,

Michigan

II.

A psychological assessment of the defendant states in summary:

• defendant has a Schizoid Personality Disorder as well as a

Pedophile Disorder

• defendant functions in the average to above average range of

intelligence

• the presence of the Schizoid Personality Disorder is a condition

characterized by a pervasive pattern of detachment from social

relationships and a restricted range of expression or emotion in

interpersonal settings

• defendant’s Schizoid Personality traits leave him at a decreased

risk of contact offenses

• defendant will benefit from participation in individual and/or group

psychotherapy

III.

The Presentence Investigation Report, which is not part of the public record,

includes, as is customary, a detailed account of defendant’s offense, including charge

and offense conduct, a computation of the offense level and criminal history of

defendant, which is consistent with the plea agreement and no criminal history. The

computation of the offense level follows:

3

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 252
Count 1: Distribution of Child Pornography

Base Offense Level: The guideline for 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(2) offenses 

is found in USSG §2G2.2 of the guidelines. That section provides for a 

base offense level of 22. USSG §2G2.2(a)(2) 22

Specific Offense Characteristics: Two levels are added as the defendant

possessed images involving a minor who had not attained the age of

12 years. USSG §2G2.2(b)(2). +2

Specific Offense Characteristics: As the offense involved distribution, a

two-level increase is applied. USSG §2G2.2(b)(3)(f). +2

Specific Offense Characteristics: As the offense involved material that

portrayed sadistic or masochistic conduct, a four-level increase is

applied. USSG §2G2.2(b)(4). +4

Specific Offense Characteristics: Two levels are added as the 

defendant used a computer. USSG §2G2.2(b)(6). +2

Specific Offense Characteristics: Five levels are added as the

defendant possessed more than 600 images. USSG §2G2.2(b)(7)(D). +5

Victim Related Adjustment: None. 0

Adjustment for Role in the Offense: None. 0

Adjustment for Obstruction of Justice: None. 0

Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal): 37

Chapter Four Enhancement: None. 0

Acceptance of Responsibility: The defendant has clearly demonstrated

acceptance of responsibility for the offense. Accordingly, the offense

level is decreased by two levels. USSG §3E1.1(a). -2

Acceptance of Responsibility: The defendant has assisted authorities

in the investigation or prosecution of the defendant’s own misconduct

by timely notifying authorities of the intention to enter a plea of guilty.

Accordingly, the offense level is decreased by one additional level.

USSG §3E1.1(b). -1

Total Offense Level: 34

4

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 253
The characteristics of the offender display nothing exceptional, and includes an account

of defendant’s participation in outpatient sex offender therapy, which reads:

Mr. Catlett has been motivated to eliminate his interest in

CSAM (child sexually abusive material). He is aware of the

damage caused to the victims of CSAM. He is identifying

and correcting his thinking errors he used to justify his use of

CSAM. He is learning his particular cycle of sexual offending

with appropriate detours. He is developing a solid relapse

prevention plan.

The Report includes defendant’s employment record and financial condition. The

Report also includes the sentencing options open to the Court, and the factors to be

considered in sentencing.

IV.

The government and defendant have each furnished the Court with a sentencing

memorandum urging on the Court their respective views of an appropriate sentence. 

No good purpose will be served by a detailed discussion of the reasons for the positions

of the parties. Importantly, the government has recommended a sentence of 96

months, which represents a significant variance from the guideline range of 151 to 188

months. In making its recommendation the government states:

A sentence of 96 months will incapacitate and significantly

deter Catlett, but will also serve as an adequate deterrent to

others who are inclined to involve themselves in the trading

and acquisition of child pornography.

The sentencing memorandum of defendant is lengthy; it argues in support of a

recommendation of 60 months, the mandatory minimum. Of significance is the

following excerpt from the memorandum:

The guideline for this offense [distribution] has

historically been the subject of intense criticism. That

5

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 254
substantial changes to the guideline have not yet been made

does not change the almost universal concern expressed

about these guidelines and the impact on the analysis of a

fair and reasonable sentence. Indeed, in this District,

sentences are routinely imposed below the sentencing

guideline range and at or near the mandatory minimums.

It is no accident that the Sentencing Commission held

public hearings on this issue. Prepared commentary of the

judiciary highlights the problems associated with the current

guideline structure... [See the] Statement by the Honorable

M. Casey Rodgers (on behalf of the Judicial Conference of

the United States Committee on Criminal Law). Judge

Rodgers highlighted the difficulties experienced by the

judiciary in crafting the appropriate sentence:

Most often, our independent consideration of the

section 3553(a) factors confirms the reasonableness

of the recommended guidelines sentencing range. 

Unfortunately, however, this is not the case in the

area of child pornography offenses.

. . . Judge Rodgers continued that “. . .[t]here is a common

sentiment among many trial judges that these guidelines fail

to provide an adequate baseline or starting point. . .which

produce guideline ranges that are too high compared to the

statutory range, particularly in the area of possession and

receipt.” . . .

One of the common concerns is that the sentencing

guidelines for child pornography offenses do not assist the

courts in identifying which offenders pose a danger of child

sexual abuse. Indeed, a defendant like Mr. Catlett is easily

swept up by Congress’ broad brush strokes in fashioning the

guideline. Mr. Catlett stands before the Court as an

exemplar of the disparity and unfairness that the current

sentencing guidelines create. Mr. Catlett has no criminal

record to speak of. He did not manufacture, create or

produce, child pornography. He primarily downloaded

material (and then backed his date files up on hard drives

across his home server, geometrically increasing the number

of images by repeated duplication).

6

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 255
Defendant also responded to the government’s memorandum in a supplement

critical of some of its assertions. The government responded, disagreeing with the

defendant. Suffice it to say that defendant’s criticism has some merit. No useful

purpose will be served by detailing the statements and criticism given the government’s

recommendation for a downward variance.

V.

A.

The statutory criteria for sentencing are set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). The

statute directs the Court to impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than

necessary, to comply with” the purposes of sentencing. These purposes include the 

need:

• to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promise respect for the

law, and to provide just punishment;

• to create adequate deterrence;

• to protect the public from future crimes of the defendant; and

• to provide the defendant with necessary treatment and training.

Also to be considered are:

• the nature and circumstance of the offense;

• the history and characteristics of the defendant;

• the kinds of sentences available;

• the sentencing guideline range;

• pertinent Sentencing Commission policy statements;

• the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and

7

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 256
• the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

B.

In commenting on sentencing, the Supreme Court has said:

It has been uniform and constant in the federal judicial

tradition for the sentencing judge to consider every convicted

person as an individual and every case a unique study in the

human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify,

the crime and the punishment to ensue.

Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996).

And in a decision on restitution, a matter not yet before the Court, the Supreme

Court in Paroline v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 1729, 1734 (2012),

said:

District courts routinely exercise discretion in sentencing as a

general manner. . .

* * *

. . .district courts exercise substantial discretion in. . . 

imposing sentences in general. But they do not do so by

mere instinct; courts are instead guided by statutory

standards. . .in sentencing more generally the detailed

factors in section 3553(a).

Importantly to the Court’s consideration of the sentence in this case is what the

Sixth Circuit said in United States v. Collins, 828 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2016), a child

pornography case. In Collins, a district judge polled a jury who found the defendant

guilty of receipt and distribution of child pornography as to an appropriate sentence. 

The calculated guideline range was 267 to 327 months, well above the statutory

maximum for defendant’s offenses of 20 years. The jury responded to an after verdict

question of, “What do you believe an appropriate sentence range is?” The jurors’

8

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 257
answers ranged from zero to 60 months, with a mean of 14.5 months and median of 8

months. With one exception, every juror recommended a sentence of less than half of

the five-year mandatory minimum for defendant’s offenses. Each juror’s

recommendation was a fraction of defendant’s guideline range. Id. at 388. The district

judge sentenced the defendant to the mandatory minimum of five years for distribution. 

The government objected to the variance based on the jury poll. In affirming the

mandatory minimum sentence, the Sixth Circuit made a number of relevant statements.

First, the Court of Appeals quoted the district judge as saying he considered the

jury poll “as one factor in fashioning the sentence.”

The Court of Appeals went on to say (internal citations omitted):

. . . A district court abuses its discretion in the sentencing

context if it “commit[s a] significant procedural error,” 

“selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on

impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing

factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any

pertinent factor.”

828 F.3d at 388.

* * *

District courts have the authority to “reject the Guidelines

sentencing ranges based on articulated policy

disagreements in a range of contexts.” Indeed, we have

suggested the plausibility of rejecting guidelines ranges in

child pornography cases based on policy disagreements.

828 F.3d at 389.

* * *

. . . [T]he record reflects a sufficiently detailed explanation of

why [the judge] believed neither specific nor general

deterrence compelled a longer sentence. (the district court

need only “set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that

[it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a

9

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 258
reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking

authority.”) The district judge cited just punishment as “the

most important factor,” albeit tempered by “how off the mark

the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are.”

828 F.3d at 390-91.

VI.

A.

The discussion above is the predicate for the Court’s variance in the 72 month

sentence imposed. As noted, the government reasonably recommended a 96 month

sentence, a significant variance. The Court, in its discretion, found that the more

appropriate variance is 72 months. The 72 months, coupled with 10 years of

supervised release, the conditions of which are described in Exhibit A attached, reflect

the seriousness of defendant’s offense, promote respect for the law, provides just

punishment, provides an adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct, and protects

the public from further conduct by the defendant.

B.

Particularly as to defendant:

• he is not a substance abuser

• he is a high school and college graduate

• he has maintained steady employment

• he has close family connections

• he has had a troubled childhood

• he quickly accepted responsibility for his wrongdoing, and is making

a massive effort to understand and correct his wrongdoing

10

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 259
• there is no indication he has ever or will ever molest child and

poses a low risk of future sexual misconduct

• he has demonstrated remorse

• he has taken firm steps toward rehabilitation

Particularly the sentence:

• is consistent with the strictures of 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)

• is not greater than necessary to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

Also the Court has considered:

• the nature and circumstances of the offense, and history and

characteristics of the defendant

• the need of the sentence to reflect the seriousness of an offense,

adequate to deter criminal conduct; protect the public from future

criminal activity and provide the defendant with for educational or

vocational training, medical care or other correctional treatment

• the kinds of sentences available

• the sentencing range established by the Sentencing Guidelines

• restitution

C.

The government, in recommending a downward variance from the bottom of the

guideline range of 151 months, presumably also took into consideration the § 3553(a)

factors. There is no litmus test to determine who is right and who is wrong. Discretion

has been defined as choice. See Aharon Barak, Judicial Discretion, 7 (Yale University

Press 1987) (“Judicial discretion . . . means the power the law gives to the judge to

choose among several alternatives, each of them being lawful.”) Here the statutory

scheme of sentencing has given the final choice of a sentence to the Court. In other

11

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 260
words, the government proposes, the Court disposes.

In sum, the Court is satisfied that the downward variance reflected in the

sentence is appropriate, all things considered, more so than the lesser downward

variance recommended by the government.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 26, 2016

Detroit, Michigan

12

2:15-cr-20482-AC-RSW Doc # 41 Filed 10/26/16 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 261