## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3097 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D EN NIS G ART HUS, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 09 CR 441-1

—Wi ll iam J. H ibb ler , Judge .
A RG UE D J UNE 14, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 14, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . The defendant ple aded gui l ty to fede r alc r i m es o ft r an spo r ting , rec ei ving, a nd po ss es sing ch i l d po r no g r aph y a nd was s en te nc ed to 3 60 months in prison
. 1 8 U
. S. C
. §§ 2252A (a)( 1), ( a)(2) (A ), ( a)(5) (B). The gui del i nes s en te nci ng r ange w as 360 m onths to l i fe; th e st atut o r y min i m um s en te nc e was 1 80 m onths ; he w as 44 ye ar s ol d w hen se ntenced. H i s a pp ealchal l enges hi s s entence o n sev er algr oun ds, o fwh i ch the one m ost2 N o. 10

- 3097

em p ha sized by d efense cou ns el i s th a t the district cou rt im pr o per l y f ai l ed to c o ns i derhe ra r g um en t th atthe d e fe n d a n th a d h a d “ d i mi n i s h e d c a p a c i t y ” t o a v o i d c o mm i tti ng the c r i m es , a g r o und r ec o g ni ze d b y the s en tencing guidel i nes a s a poss ibl e j usti fi cati on fo r a l ower se n t e n c e. U .S.S.G . § 5K 2.1 3; U ni t e d S t at e s v. M i r anda , 50 5 F.3 d 78 5, 79 2 (7 t h C i r. 20 07 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cunn i ngh am , 429 F. 3d 673, 67 9 ( 7th Ci r. 200 5); U nite d S t at e s v. U t l aut, 497 F.3d 843, 845 (8th Cir. 2007). W h en arr est ed, the defe nd ant had i n hi s pos ses si o n s o me 2 0 0 0 do wnl o a de d p ho t o g r a ph s a nd v i deos o fp r e pu b e s c e ntg i r l s , mo s tb e t we e n 4 a nd 9 y e a r s o l d, en g ag ed i n s ex ua la ct i vi ti es ; many o f th e pho to g r aph s an d vid eo s d ep ict ed vio len t s ex u a l a ss au lts on th e c h ild r e n . Te n ye ar s e ar lier h e’d be en co n vic te d in a n Il lin ois sta te court, and ser ved a yea r i n pri son, f oran o ffense invo l vingc hi l d po r no g r aph y

— a n d mo r e : h e h a d ma de a vi deo o fhim se lf cutt i ng o ffa 14- yea r- ol d gi rl ’ s panti es and touc h i ng hervag i na. H e had be en m ol est i ng her si nce s he was 10. The de fen dan t’s s ex ua li nt er es ts f o cus o n pr epu be sc en t girl s w earing p an ties ( his screen nam e w as Pa nt ielo v e r); he is al so att ra cted t o adult w om en, atl eas t when they ar e wea r i ngpa nty ho se , b uthe ha s ne ve rha d a g i r l fr i en d or, apparent l y, any adult sexualr el ati onshi p . H e has been diag n osed w i th “pedophil i a, se xually a ttr acte d to fem ale s, n on ex c lu siv e t yp e.” D im inished cap acity in fed eral senten cing law refers to cogn iti ve or ps ych ologi cal l im itations th at fall short o fi ns an i ty, s ev er e m en talr et ar dat i o n, o rde m en ti a butN o. 10

- 3097 3

co nt r ibuted i n o ne o ft wo way s ( o rb o th ) t o the cri m e forwh i ch the defe nd ant i s be i ng se ntenced: by r educing

— th o ug h no t el i m i na ting

— hi s ab i l i t y t o a pp re c iat e t h e w ro n gfu ln es s o f h i s a c t s , or by red u c in g h is abi l i ty to avo i d com m i tting them

. U
. S. S. G. § 5 K 2. 13 A p p lic at ion N ot e 1 ; U nite d States v. R oach , 29 6 F
. 3d 565, 568 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. I t i s t hus an at tenuate d ver si on o f the s tandard i nsani ty defe nse. W hy dim i ni shed capaci ty i n thi s sense ( or senses) shoul d be a m i ti gat i ng f acto r i n s entencing i s obscur e. The dim i nuti on m ake s a defendant m or e li kely t o re peat hi s cr i m e when he i s r el eas ed from p ris on. That i s e speci al l y s o w hen the cri m e invol ves com pu l si ve behavi or, such a s beh avio r dri ven byse xual desi re . U nited Sta tes v. R o gers , 587 F.3d 816 , 8 2 1 (7th C ir. 2009); U ni t e d S t a tes v. Cunn i ngh am , 103 F.3d 553 , 556 (7th C ir. 19 96 ); D o e v. Sex O

ffend er R eg i s t ry B o a rd, 85 7 N
. E.2 d 473, 482- 83 ( M ass . 20 06 ); P eoplev. Ea rl e, 91 Cal

. Rptr. 3d 26 1, 282- 83 and n. 1 6 (A pp . 20 09)
. S uch behavi orr equi re s ac tiv e re sis ta n c e b y t h e p er so n te m p te d t o en ga ge in it, i f i t i s to b e a voide d; a nd di m i ni sh ed ca pac i tywea k en s the abi l i ty to re si st. One ofthe de fendant’s exper ts opi ned th at the defendant’s abi l i ty to re si st coul d be str engthe ned substant i al l y with m edi cati on a nd ther apy. Bu t bo th defense expert s be l i eve d, and defens e co unsel ar gue d, tha t he w oul dn’ t g etpr o pert r ea tmenti n pr i so n. T ha t is very d am aging t o th e argu m en t tha t he w on’t r ec i di va te , s i nc e byv i r tu e o fthe s ta tu to r y min i m um he w i l lspend m any y ear s in pri son and w h en r el eas ed m ay b e u n ab l e t o res isth is c rim in al im p u lse s b ec au se h is co ndi ti o n wi l lno t ha ve b ee n t r ea te d e ffec ti ve l y i n pr i so n.4 N o. 10

- 3097 Fr om a “j ust dese rt s” st andp oi nt, di m i ni shed capaci ty ar gue s f o ra l i g ht ers en te nc e, b utfr o m the s tan dpo i nt ofpre venting r ec i divi sm i t a rgues fora heavi ero ne. The heavi erse nt en c e m ay not detera cri m i nalfro m re peati ng hi s cr i m e when he i s r el eas ed ( that is i m pli ed by sa ying he has dim i ni shed capaci ty) , but i t wil lr educe hi s l i feti m e cr i m i nalactivit y b y incapaci tat i ng hi m f or a l onge r ti m e than i fhe r ecei ved a l i ghterse ntence. H ow to c h oose? The sente nci ng guidel i nes do not em b od y a co h er en t p en al p h ilos op h y. U ni ted S t at e s v. Blarek, 7 F
. Sup p . 2d 192, 203-04 (E
. D
. N
. Y
. 1998); Pa ul J. H ofer & M ar kH. Al l enba ug h, “ The Re as o n b eh i nd the Rules : Find i ng and U si ng the Phi l oso phy ofthe Feder al Se ntenci ng Guidel i nes, ” 4 0 A m . C r im . L. R ev. 19, 26

- 36 ( 2003 )
. “The [ Se ntenci ng] Com m i ssi on’ s co ncl usi on ca n be s um m ar i ze d thus : sin ce pe o pl e di sa g r ee o ve rthe aim s o f se n te n c in g, it is b es t t o h av e n o r a t i o n ale atall.” A nd re w vo n H i rs ch, “F edera lSentencing Guidel i nes: Do They Pr ovi de Pri nci ple d G u id an c e?,” 27 Am
. Cr i m . L. Rev
. 36 7, 37 1 ( 1989 )
. In the case o fdi m i ni shed capaci ty the guidel i ne s hav e e m bra ced a j ust- deser ts theo ry ; but wh y i t has done s o

— w hy i t has i n thi s instanc e e l eva te d ju st -d es er ts co n sid er at ion s o ve r th e in te re st in preve nti ng r eci divi sm

— i s no t e x p lai ned. In any eve nt, un de rthe B o o k err e g i me a s e nt e nc i ngj ud g e c a n a do pt h is ow n p en al p h ilos o p h y. U nited Sta tes v. C o rner, 59 8 F.3 d 41 1, 41 6 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ) (en ba n c ); U nited St at e s v. He rrera-Z uniga , 57 1 F
. 3d 568, 58 5 ( 6th Ci r. 20 09)
. A nd so he c andi sr eg ar d the g ui del i ne s’ c l as si fi ca ti o n o fdi m i nish ed capacity a s a m i ti gat i ng f acto r, r ega rd i t a s a n ag g r av at i ngf ac to r, o rr eg ar d i t as a was h.N o. 10

- 3097 5 The defe nd ant a rgues that the di str i ct j ud ge i gnor ed the i ssue ofdi m i ni shed capaci ty. In re sponse to a hara ngue bydefense counseland a det ai l ed re sponse to i t bythe pr o se cut o r, a l lthe j udge said w as tha t “the Court w as str uck with M r . Garthus’ so m ew hat tr o ubl ed upbr i ng i ng . The r e ar e m an y pe r so ns i n o ur society w ho h ave stru ggles .

. . . Ce rtainly the C ou rt tak es note thatther e m ay be i ssu es w hi ch have not been proper l y add re sse d w i th r ega rds t o M r. Garthus. The Court i s a w ar e o fhi s physi calai l m en ts
. . . . [ Defe nse counseli s] co nvi nc ed t hat M r. Garthus w i th the pro per tr eat men twi l ln o tr e o ffe nd

. . . b utthe Co ur tdo e s not shar e i t. Idon’ t thi nk the re i s a ny guarant ee that anyo ne can gi ve that thi s ur ge w hi ch M r. Garthus has wi l l n o t r e e me r g e o n c e h e i s g i v e n th e o p p o r t u n i t y t o do so . . . . The Courtbel i eve [ s] tha t th e G u idel i nes a re r easo na ble underthe c i r cumst an ce s. And the Co ur t ca n fi nd no j u st ifi cati on t o depart fro m the re com m ended guidel i nes. ” ( The j ud ge’ s m enti on o f“physi cal a i l m ents” was i n r e fe r e nc e t o a di ffe r e ntmit i g a t i o n a r g ume ntma de b y d efe n se co u n se l.) Or di na r i l y a s en te nc i ngj udg e’ s f ai l ur e to a ddr es s th e defe nd a nt ’ s pr i nc i pa l a r g ume nt f o r l e ni e nc e wo ul d be a re ve rs ible err or . U ni t e d S t at es v. Vi l l egas -M i r anda , 57 9 F. 3d 798, 80 1- 02 ( 7th Ci r. 200 9); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cunni ngh am , sup ra , 429 F.3d a t 67 9; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ol hovs ky , 5 62 F. 3d 530, 54 7, 55 2 ( 3d Cir

. 20 09) ; se e gener al l y R ita v . U nited Sta tes , 55 1 U.S
. 33 8, 35 6- 57 ( 2007 )
. But dim i ni shed capaci ty w as not ar gued by defe nse c ounselatthe sente nci ng he ari ng; the ter m was n ot eve n m enti oned, tho ugh the defe nd ant’ s co gni ti ve6 N o. 10

- 3097

an d p sy c h iat ric d efic ien c ies w er e; an d it is u n s u b st an tia t e d. T he de fen d a n t suffers fr om atten tion-d efi cit disord er/ hypera cti vi ty dis or der, d ysl exi a, d epres si on, and anxi ety
. H e also, accord ing to one of the d efens e e x p e rts, su ffers fro m “chr oni c and p er sist ent intel l ectualo r cogni ti ve l i m i tat i ons. ” He has an I Q of83
. M ean I Q i s o fco urse 10 0, and th e st an dard devi ati on i s 1 5. Thi s m eans that tw othi rds o fth e p op u l ati on have an I Q between 85 and 115, an d 16 .67p er c en t (o n e-h alf ofon e-t h i r d ) h av e a n IQ und er85
. A pers on w ith an I Q of83 i s no t br i ght, tho ugh he i s not in tel l ectual l y di sabl ed ei ther

. But nei ther def en se ex per t, no rde fen se c o uns eli n e i th erhe rs en t e n c i n g me mo r a n d u m o r h e r l e n g th y r e ma r k s a t th e se nt en cinghe ar i ng, ment i o ne d a ny e vi den ce tha t th e defe nd ant’ s m entalco nd i ti on had i m pai re d his ab ili ty ei th ert o ha ve a ppr ec i at ed th e wron gfulne ss o fwhathe w as do ing o r to have re fra i ned f ro m doi ng i t. The exper ts op in ed th a t t h e d efe n d an t’s co gn itiv e a n d p sy c h iat ric probl em s m i ght ha ve contr ibuted to hi s ped op h i l i a, f or ex ampl e bymakinghi m to o shyto f o r m a s ex ua lr el at i o nsh ip w ith an ad u lt

— al th o ug h i t was ne ve r ex pl aine d why that w oul d gener ate a desi re f orchi l d pornog ra phy ra ther than adul t pornogr aph y. B u t they didn’tsa y those problem s h ad im p air ed h is u n d er st an d in g of t h e w ro n gfu ln es s o fh is b eh av ior o r m ad e itm or e d ifficu lt for h im th an for a p er so n w ith o u t h i s c og n itiv e a n d p sy c h iat ric probl em s t o contr olhi s desi re to co l l ect i l l ega lpor nogr aphic i m age s. At the s en te nc i nghe ar i ng, wher e as we sa i d no o ne m en ti o ne d “ di m i ni sh ed ca pac i ty, ” defen se c o uns elwentN o. 10

- 3097 7 offi n other dir ecti ons, so m e di stinc tly unprom i si ng, as when sh e r epe at edly r efer r ed to he r cl i en t as bei ng the “v i ct i m . ” At on e p oi nts he c al l ed hi m “ a vi ct i m i n the m ostextr em e s en se .” A s a chi l d he had been beat en a n d c a l l e d s t u p i d b y h i s f a th e r, a n d h i s me n t a l p r o b l e ms h ad n ev e r b e en tre at ed or ev en d iag n os ed be for e h is ar re st. H e a l so has a hear t co nd i ti on. But he has neve r b ee n se x u ally ab u se d an d h is “ vic tim iza tio n ” is h ar d ly co m par ab l e to tha t o fthe c hi l dr eni n the po r no grap hy tha th e do wnl o a de d o ro fth e gi r lwho m he ha d mo l e s t e d. Re l y i ngmai nl y on th e psy ch i at r i c ex per t’ s r epo r t ( th e othe r expertwas a psy chol ogi st ), defense counselfurther ar gu ed th at h er clie n t, d es p ite h is m ole st at ion of a gir l, was no t a “pr eda to r, ” define d b y the l awy era s o ne who com m i ts “hands-o n chi l d abuse o r som e s or t o factual conta ct. ” S he sa i d that he i s s hy, and she p oin te d o ut that hi s vi ct i m ha d b ee n a r el at i ve , and s he a r g ue d tha t he w oul d neverapproa ch a girlwh o w as not a r el ati ve. S he no t e d th a tth e p s y c h i a t r i s th a d t e r me d th e d e fe n d a nt “a l ow ri sk f orbr eak i ng the l aw i n the future” bec ause he showed “ g o o d j udg m en t” dur i ngthe i nt er vi ew b y the psy ch i at r i sta nd ex pr es se d empathy f o rthe “ pl i g ht ” o fthe ch il d ren w hos e im ages h e had colle cted

. Th ese are gossam er-thin grou nd s f or a pred iction abou t his futu re sexualbehav i or . The l aw yerdi dn ’ t m ention t he psychi atr ist ’s fu rt h er st at em e n t t h at th e d efe n d an t’s “p ed op h ilic f antas i es ar e chr oni c and n ot l i kel y t o change ove r ti m e, eve n w i th continued ther apy. ” N or did she m enti on th at al m o st th e en ti r e emphas i s o fhi s r epo r t, s o f ara s th e l i k el i ho o d o fr ec idivism was c o nc erne d, was tha t th e defe nd ant was “no t l ike ly to act out [ hi s pedophil i c]8 N o. 10

- 3097 fanta sies by sex ua ll y ap p roac hin g un d erage fem ales. ” So j us t as i n U ni t e d Stat e s v. Coopm an , 60 2 F
. 3d 814, 81 8 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10) , the expert“underm in ed the re l evance o f hi s t est i m ony” byf ocusing excl u sive l y o n the l i kel i hood that a chi l d-por nogr aphy offender w ou l d com m i t a “h an ds- o n” o ffen se a nd i g no r i ngthe l i k el i ho o d tha t he w oul d com m i t future chi l d-por nogr aphy offenses . A t t h e s en te n c in g h ea rin g d efe n se co u n s e l ’s m ain ar gum ent was that the defendant w as unli kel y t o com m i t furtherse x cr i m es i fr elea sed after18 0 m onths, w h en h e w ou ld be alm os t 6 0 y ea rs old . (A c tu ally , i f sente nced to 180 m onths, he woul d be r el eas ed after15 7 m o nths

— a l i ttl e o ver13 ye ar s, not15

— i f he be haved h im se l f in p ris on . See 18 U .S.C . § 36 24 (b ); Barb e rv. Thom as , 1 30 S
. Ct
. 2 499, 2 50 2- 03 ( 20 10 )
. ) Tha t’ s a di ffer en t ar gum ent fro m di m i ni shed capaci ty, and i nd eed, as w e said earl i er, i n tens i on with i t a nd unsubstanti ate d to boo t. The j udg e was un p ersu ade d tha t th e defen dan t woul d f o r g o c r i m inal a ct i vi tya fte rr el ea se fr o m pr i so n, and given the absence o fco ntra ryev i dence he was not re quir ed to do m or e than re gi ste r hi s disa gr eem ent. T h at th e de f e n d a n ti s s h y a n d h i s o n e “ h a n d s - o n ” v i c t i m a r elat i ve a nd tha t he e xhibi te d “ g o o d j udg m en t” a nd “em pathy” in hi s inter vi ew bythe psychi atr i st d o not en su re th at h e w on ’t fin d an ot h er “h an d s- o n ” v ict im when he i s r el ea se d fr o m pr i so n, o rr esu m e co l l ec ting and diss em i nati ng chi l d pornog ra phy. W e need evi dence- dri ven l aw j ust a s we need ev i dencedri ven m edi ci ne. S tatisti calanal ysi s o fse x cr i m es hasN o. 10

- 3097 9 shown thatthe bestpre dict oro fr eci divi sm i s no t depor tme n t a t a n i n t e r v i e w b u t s e x u a l i n t e r e s t i n c h i l d r e n. R. K ar lH anson, Kell ey E. M or ton & A n drew J. R. H ar ri s, “S ex ua lOffen der Re ci di vi sm Ri sk : W ha t W e Know a nd W hat W e N eed to Kn ow,” 98 9 Annal s of theN
. Y. Acad e m y of Sc ienc es 1 5 4 , 1 5 7( 2 0 0 3 ) ( ta b

. 1 )
. S o me s t u d i e s s h o w a high rate of recid ivi sm am ong ped op hili c sex offe nd ers gener al l y, r an gin g fro m 10 per cent to 50 perce nt. Ryan C.W
. H all & Ri chard C. W
. H al l, “A Profi l e o fPedophil i a: D e fi n i t i o n, C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o fO ffe n d e r s , R e c i d i v i s m, Treat m ent Outcom es, and Fo re nsi c I ssues , ” 8 2 M ayo Clinic Proc e e di ngs 45 7, 46 7 (2 00 7). A n ot h er s tu d y fou n d th at on ly 6. 8 per cent ofc onsum er s o fchi l d pornog ra phy had been c h ar ge d w ith a n ew ch ild -p o rn og ra p h y off en se w ith in 4 year s buttha t th e per ce nt ag e r o se t o 9
. 5 per ce nt w i thi n 6 y ear s. A ngel a W
. Eke, M i chaelC. S eto & J ennette W il li am s, “E xa m in ing the Crim inal H istory and Futu re Offending ofChil d Porno gr aphy O ffenders: A n Extend ed Pro specti ve Fol l ow-up Study, ” Law & H um an Beha vi or, N ov . 19, 20 10 (t a b . 1), w w w . spri nger l i nk. com /c onte nt/ h46168 6262 1x8616 /( visited Jun e 23, 2011 ). I t’ s a m i sta ke to l um p tog etherdi ffer en t ty p es ofse x offender. L isa L. Sam ple & Ti m othyM
. Bray, “Are S ex Offenders Differ ent? A n Exam i nati on o fRear re st Patterns, ” 1 7 Cri m . Jus t i cePol i cyRe v. 83, 93-97 (200 6). T his d efend an t’s c h a r a c teristics sugge st th at he i s m ore dangero us than the av er age co nsum ero fc h ild por nogr aphy. A pedophil i c s ex o ffender w ho has co m m i tte d both a c h i l d

- p o r n o g r a p h y o ffe n s e a n d a h a n d s - o n s e x c r i me i s m o r e l i k ely t o c o m m i t a future c rime, i nc l udi ng anothe r han d s-on offense, than a defendant w ho has10 N o. 10

- 3097

c o mmi t t e d o n l y a c h i l d

- p o r n o g r a p h y o ffe n s e . D r e w A
. Ki ng st o n etal

. , “ Po r no g r aph y Use a nd S ex ua lAgg r es si o n: The I m pact o fFr equency a nd T yp e o fPornogr aphy U se on Reci divi sm A m ong Se xual Offenders, ” 3 4 Aggre ss i ve Be h a vi or1, 9 ( 2008 ) ; M i chaelC. S eto & A ngel a W
. Eke, “T h e C rim in al H ist or ies an d L at er O ffen d in g of C h ild Por nogr aphy Offenders, ” 1 7 Sex ua l A buse 20 1, 20 7 (20 05 ) (ta b . 3). Th e s ad ist ic n at u re of m u c h of th e c h ild pornog ra phy consum ed by th e d efendant i s a nother re aso n to worr y about hi s be i ng o n the l oo se. T h e p sychia tr i st m en tio n ed n on e o f th e re lev an t s c ien tific l i ter atur e in ass ess i n g th e r i sk ofr eci divi sm , se e U nited State s v. M cIl rath , 5 12 F
. 3d 42 1, 4 24 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) , a nd defen se c o uns eld i d no t su g g es t th atthe de fen dan t m i ght b e ci vi l l y c om m i tte d, as a con tin u i ng m enace to s o c i e t y, a ft e rc o mp l e t i o n o fh i s p r i s o n t e r m. The j udg e’ s sente nc i ngr emar k s wer e cr y pti c. Butthe tensi on we note d ear l ier betw een di m i ni shed capaci ty as a m i ti g at i nga nd a s ana g g r av at i ngf ac to r i n s en te nc i ng m ake s i t di ffi cul t fora j ud ge to do m or e than thi s j ud ge did, wh i ch is to choo se. I t was an unavo i dabl e cho i ce b et w ee n inc om m en su ra b les

. U nite d States v. G am m icchia , 49 8 F
. 3d 46 7, 4 69 (7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. He made c l ea rtha t he w as m ore con cern ed w ith th e ri sk of th e d efe n d a n t ’s re peati ng hi s cr i m es w hen r el eas ed fro m pri son than wi ththe de fend an t’ s “i ss ue s, ” whi chi s to s aythe a r g um ents press ed by defe nse c ouns e l f or l eni ence. The j ud ge w anted a “guarante e”; thati s, he wanted to m i ni m i ze the r i sk ofr eci divi sm . H e was ent i tl ed to pu t incapaci tat i on a nd speci fi c dete rr ence ahead of j ust dese rt s.N o. 10

- 3097 11 “The m or e obvi ous the r eas ons f orthe sente nce, the l ess the need to announce the m . ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. M i ddagh , 59 4 F. 3d 1291 , 12 96 ( 10th C i r. 20 10) ; se e a l so R ita v. U nited Sta tes , sup ra , 55 1 U.S
. at35 6. Defen se c ou nselpre sente d scantyev i dence and fee bl e a rgum ents that the def e n d a n two u l d b e h a r ml e s s wh e n r e l e a s e d fr o m p r i s o n. There w asn’ t m uch m or e forthe j ud ge to sayi n the f ace o fs o o ne - s i de d a r e c o r d. Th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s fi n a la r g u me n ti s th a tth e p r o v i s i o ns ofthe sente nci ng gu id elines r el ating to se xual offenses ar e e m p iric ally u n su p p or te d , vin d ict i v e , a n d ex c es siv ely h ar sh . E .g., U nited St a t es v. G rob er, 62 4 F
. 3d 592, 60 3- 09 (3d C ir. 20 10 ); U nite d S ta tes v. D o rvee, 61 6 F
. 3d 174, 18 4- 88 ( 2d Ci r . 2 01 0) ; Tr o y S tabe no w, “ Dec o ns truct i ngthe M yt h o f Care ful Stud y: A Pri m ero n the Fl aw ed Pro gr ession of the C hild P or n o g rap hy Gu idelines” (2009 ), www. f d. o r g/p d f

_lib /chil d %2 0 po rn%2 0j uly %20 r e v i s i o n. pd f (vis ite d Ju n e 23 , 201 1). T h e a rg u m en t is m or e p ro p er ly add re sse d t o the S entencing Com m i ssi on, o r to Congre ss, whi chha s g r ea tly i nfl ue nc ed th e ch i l d- p o r no g r aph y gu id elin es , U nited Sta tes v. M cN erney, 636 F. 3d 772, 775- 78 ( 6th Ci r . 2 01 1) , tha n t o a n indi vi dualdistrict j udg e i n a sente nci ng heari ng. S ee U ni t e d St at e s v. Pape, 60 1 F
. 3d 743, 74 8-4 9 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v . Ag u i l ar- Huer ta , 576 F.3 d 36 5, 36 7-6 8 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lo pezR eyes , 5 89 F
. 3d 66 7, 6 71 ( 3d Ci r. 2 00 9)
. A se nt en cing j ud ge i s no t r equi re d to “del ve i nto the his tory ofa gui del i ne” in or der t o sat i sfy hi m sel fthat“the pro cess that pr o du c e d i twas ad e qu a t e ” ; “s e nt e nc i ngh e a r i ng s [ wo ul d] be co m e unmana g eabl e, a s th e f o cus s hi fted fr o m the defen dan t’s c o nduc t to the ‘ l eg i sl at i ve ’ hi st o r y o fthe12 N o. 10

- 3097 gui del i nes. ” U nite d States v. A guilar- H uer ta , sup ra , 57 6 F
. 3d a t 36 8. J udg e H ibb l erwas e nt i tl ed to l i m i t hi s co nsi derat i on t o the p ar ti cul arappli cabl e guidel i nes, wh i ch he j ud ged to be appropri ate to the d efendant’s co nd uct. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. M aul di ng, 62 7 F
. 3d 285, 28 7- 88 ( 7th C ir. 20 10 ); U nited St at e s v. Pape, sup ra , 60 1 F
. 3d at 748- 49; U nited Sta tes v. H uffsta tler, 571 F.3d 620 , 624 (7th C ir. 2009). W e d o n ’ tr e a d h i s r e ma r kab o u tth e g u i d e l i n e s ’ b ei ng “r e a s o nab l e ” t o me a n tha th e wa s g i v i ngthe m pr e s umptiv e fo rc e, w h ich w ou ld b e im p ro p er . R ita v. U nited Sta tes , sup ra , 55 1 U.S
. at35 1. H e is p re su m ed to kno w the l aw ( a r ea l i st i c pr es um pti o n, g i ve n h o w l ar g e se nt encing l oo m s in the w or k o fdi str i ct j ud ges nowad ays )
. H e doubtl es s th ou gh t he was g i vingthe de fen dan t th e r i g hts en tence , nota sente n c e that he di sag re ed w i th and w as i m po singmer ely b ec au se it w as c o ns i st en t wi tha gu id elin e t h at co u ld n otbe th ou gh t u n re as on ab le in ge n er al. The gr avi ty of th e defe nd ant’ s o ffense shoul d not be denigra ted. Thi s ca se i s l i ke U nited Sta tes v. G o ldb erg, 49 1 F. 3d 668, 66 9, 67 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , wh er e “ young chi l dren wer e r ape d i n o r dert o e nabl e th e pr o duct i on o fthe po r no g r aph y tha t th e defen dan t bo thdo wnl o ade d a nd up l oaded

—b oth consum ed hi m sel fand dis sem i nated to othe rs . [ Over a peri od of som e 18 m onths, Gol dberg had d ow n loa d ed h u n d re d s o fp or n og ra p h ic p h ot og ra p h ic i m ag es , s o m e depi ct i ngc hi l dr en as y o unga s 2 o r3 b eing vaginal l y penet ra ted byadul t m al es. H e o ffer ed these i m age s t o othe r subscr iber s t o the web s ite to i nd uce th em to s en d s i m i l ari m ag es in r etur n. ] The g r ea te rtheN o. 10

- 3097 13 custo m erdem and fo r child p ornogr aphy, the m or e that w ill b e produced .

. . . The l ogi c o fdeter re nce s ugges ts th atthe l i g ht erthe puni sh m en t fordo wnl o adinga nd up l oadi ng chi l d pornog ra phy, the gr eat er t h e cust om er dem and fo r i t a nd so the m or e w i l l be produced. ” Defense c ou n se l co u ld n o t h av e p ick ed a les s a u sp icio u s v eh icle f o rmount i nga b r o ad as sault o n the g ui del i ne pr o vi si o ns re l ating to chi l d pornog ra phy. A FFI RMED .

7- 14- 11