NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION 

File Name: 17a0226n.06 

No. 16-3473 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

CORY A. BUCKHOLZ, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN 

DISTRICT OF OHIO 

BEFORE: SILER, MOORE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. 

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. 

Cory Buckholz appeals his within-Guidelines sentence of 151 months for knowingly 

receiving and distributing visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). Because this sentence is procedurally and 

substantively reasonable, we affirm. 

I. 

 In August 2014, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Buckholz’s 

residence. Buckholz was twenty-five years old and living with his mother. For most of his life, 

he had battled depression, anxiety, and drug addiction. Buckholz previously earned some 

college credits, however, and had worked as an IT administrator for a financial services 

company. He also ran his own computer repair business. 
No. 16-3473, United States v. Buckholz 

-2- 

 Buckholz used peer-to-peer software on his home computer to download and share child 

pornography. An undercover agent downloaded eight videos from Buckholz’s computer, which 

depicted prepubescent girls engaged in sexually explicit conduct with adult men, and at times 

being subjected to sadistic conduct including bondage. These videos led to the execution of a 

search warrant during which agents seized several items from Buckholz’s room, including two 

external hard drives, toddler pull-up diapers, and two pairs of girls’ underwear. A forensic 

analysis of the hard drives revealed over six hundred additional images depicting prepubescent 

girls, many under the age of twelve, engaged in oral and genital intercourse with adult men. 

 Buckholz pleaded guilty to knowingly receiving and distributing visual depictions of 

minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1). In 

the final presentence report (“PSR”), the probation officer calculated a total offense level of 34 

under U.S.S.G. §§ 2G2.2 and 3E1.1 and placed Buckholz in Criminal History Category II.1

 Per 

the sentencing table, Buckholz’s advisory Guidelines range was 168-210 months. 

 In his sentencing memorandum, Buckholz contended his criminal history score should be 

reduced to Category I, yielding a Guidelines range of 151-188 months. Moreover, he requested a 

downward variance to the mandatory minimum sentence of 60 months based on his personal 

circumstances. Buckholz also urged the district court to reject the applicable Guidelines on 

policy grounds because, in his view, they do not distinguish between those offenders who 

produce child pornography and those who view and distribute it. The government agreed the 

district court could reject a Guideline on policy grounds, but pressed for a Guidelines sentence. 

 At sentencing, the district judge made a preliminary finding of a total offense level of 34 

and a criminal history category of II for a sentencing range of 168-210 months. Next, the district 

 1

Buckholz was sentenced on April 26, 2016. The 2015 version of the Guidelines Manual 

applied. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(a). 
No. 16-3473, United States v. Buckholz 

-3- 

judge explained he would compare the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors to Buckholz’s 

background, character, and history, and, in light of the facts and circumstances particular to 

Buckholz’s case, fashion a sentence “sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet the ends of 

justice.” He acknowledged “the Guidelines are advisory.” 

 After hearing the parties’ statements, the district judge kept his finding of a total offense 

level of 34, but found that Buckholz’s “criminal history category was overrepresented,” and 

departed downward to Category I. He credited Buckholz for his addressing his addiction and his 

lack of significant criminal history. The district judge further acknowledged Buckholz’s 

“willingness to accept responsibility for [his] conduct[.]” He imposed a sentence of 151 months, 

at the bottom of the adjusted Guidelines range and seventeen months below the initial advisory 

range, followed by five years of supervised release. Buckholz timely appeals from this sentence. 

II. 

 A sentence must be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. United States v. 

Kamper, 748 F.3d 728, 739 (6th Cir. 2014). We review reasonableness challenges for abuse of 

discretion. Id. We first consider whether the district court committed “significant procedural 

error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the 

Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on 

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an 

explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). 

 Buckholz urged the district court to reject the applicable child-pornography Guideline 

because it results in sentences greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing by 

failing to distinguish between those offenders who view and distribute child pornography and 
No. 16-3473, United States v. Buckholz 

-4- 

those who produce it. The district court declined, and imposed a Guidelines sentence. 

Defendant argues this sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district judge did not 

recognize his power to vary from the Guidelines specifically on policy grounds. 

 We have “said that a district court may disagree with § 2G2.2 on policy grounds, just as it 

may any other” Guideline. United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758, 761 (6th Cir. 2012). “A 

district court errs when it ‘fail[s] to appreciate the scope of its discretion’ and ‘indicates that 

policy disagreements are not a proper basis to vary.’” Kamper, 748 F.3d at 742 (quoting United 

States v. Johnson, 407 F. App’x 8, 10 (6th Cir. 2010)). We “presume that the district court 

understood its authority to categorically reject the Guidelines on policy grounds in the absence of 

any indication to the contrary, at least where it had the opportunity to consider an argument in 

favor of such a rejection or its authority to do so was clearly established at the time of 

sentencing.” United States v. Staten, 435 F. App’x 422, 425 (6th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted);

Cf. United States v. Santillana, 540 F.3d 428, 431 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e presume that the 

district court understood its discretion, absent clear evidence to the contrary.”). 

 A review of the sentencing record as a whole supports the presumption that the district 

judge properly understood his authority. The district court was aware of Buckholz’s policy 

argument, which he presented both in his sentence memorandum and at the sentencing hearing. 

At the hearing, defense counsel repeatedly reminded the district court that it could deviate from 

the Guidelines range on policy grounds. The government never contested this proposition, 

conceding that “[t]he Court could, as some of your brethren have done, reject the Guidelines 

completely,” and citing two cases in which judges had recently done so. The prosecutor 

admitted “the Sixth Circuit says if you disagree with the Guidelines, you can reject them, of 

course, with your reasoning[.]” There was no dispute the district court had the authority to 
No. 16-3473, United States v. Buckholz 

-5- 

deviate from the Guidelines on policy grounds, and the district judge never disagreed with, or 

even questioned, the parties’ statements to that effect. 

 In sentencing Buckholz, the district judge never asserted he must do anything. He 

explicitly acknowledged the Guidelines were not mandatory, and that he could vary or depart, 

and demonstrated his appreciation of that fact by reducing Buckholz’s criminal history category 

and, as a result, his Guidelines range. Moreover, the district court expressed repeated skepticism 

of Buckholz’s policy grounds argument. When defense counsel argued the Guidelines unfairly 

“imply that every endgame user is responsible for the harm . . . done to the original children[,]” 

the district court interjected that the Guidelines were “saying in part responsible.” Later, when 

defense counsel again argued Buckholz should not be punished “as if he took the pictures and in 

fact hurt the children,” the court stated he would not be because, if Buckholz “had been the 

producer of these images, he would have been charged under a different section.” The district 

court noted a “significant difference” between the potential sentences a child pornography 

producer and defendants like Buckholz could receive. Buckholz was simply “not being treated 

the same” as someone who produced child pornography. 

 Before imposing sentence, the district judge twice acknowledged the parties’ observation 

that other judges had varied from the Guidelines. And while some judges had rejected the 

Guidelines for being “awfully harsh” on offenders who just “looked at images,” he thought it 

was more than “just looking at images” and stated the children depicted in the images suffer a 

lifetime of “degradation and embarrassment, humiliation and pain.” When read in conjunction 

with the parties’ agreement that the district court could vary on policy grounds, and that other 

judges did, the district judge’s remarks throughout the hearing suggest he had considered 
No. 16-3473, United States v. Buckholz 

-6- 

whether to vary from the child pornography Guidelines on those grounds, not if he could vary 

from them, and ultimately declined to do so in this case. 

 Buckholz presents no clear indication otherwise. In support of his position, Buckholz 

points to a line of questioning the district court initiated early in the hearing. The district judge 

initially asked defense counsel “[t]he question I always have in these cases” concerning what 

factors he should consider “in order to impose a sentence outside the Guidelines[.]” In response 

to defense counsel’s assertion that the applicable Guidelines “overvalue” Buckholz’s conduct, 

the district court observed: 

That goes to my question. That’s a kind of policy question, isn’t it? And 

Congress has decided that that is, this type of conduct warrants the Guideline of 

whatever the Guidelines falls to be. And my question is once I make a decision as 

to what the Guideline range is, under all the facts and circumstances presented 

here, do I have to – in order to go – depart from the Guidelines one way or the 

other, do I look at just Mr. Buckholz, or do I look at something else? 

The district judge returned to his question at the end of the hearing, explaining that he asks “in 

almost every case” whether “there [is] anything in this case that’s different that hasn’t been 

considered when the Guidelines were established, anything unique?” Here, he concluded that 

“the Guidelines have considered everything.” 

 For Buckholz, the district court thus presumed there was no reason to reject the 

Guidelines based on a policy disagreement. But it is Buckholz who presumes too much. 

Although the district court acknowledged the fact that Congress had made policy decisions with 

respect to what type of conduct fell within which Guideline, it did not indicate it felt constrained

by them. Indeed, the district court repeatedly sought reasons to vary or depart from defense 

counsel. In context, the district court’s inquiry speaks more to its concern for avoiding a 

sentencing disparity by not imposing too lenient a sentence compared to similarly-situated 
No. 16-3473, United States v. Buckholz 

-7- 

defendants than to any belief it was not free to vary downward based on a categorical policy 

disagreement. 

 Nor do the cases Buckholz relies on compel a different conclusion. In United States v. 

Johnson, the district judge recognized “the advisory character of the Guidelines,” but made 

“remarks about the proper role of courts” that revealed “his belief that a policy disagreement 

[was] not a proper basis for a judge to vary.” 407 F. App’x at 10. Similarly, in United States v. 

Montague, 438 F. App’x 478 (6th Cir. 2011), the district court erred by “repeatedly express[ing] 

the mistaken view that it was without power to reject or vary from [an] enhancement on policy 

grounds, noting that it was ‘not [its] job to figure out whether the Guidelines are justified or 

not.’” Id. at 482. The district court in United States v. Vandewege, 561 F.3d 608 (6th Cir. 2009), 

erred by stating “that policy judgments of whether crack and powder are equivalent or not is not 

for [it] to make.” Id. at 610. And in United States v. Johnson, 553 F.3d 990 (6th Cir. 2009), we 

did not assume the district court lacked full awareness of its authority to vary, but relied on 

express statements made at the sentencing hearing, including that “the [c]ourt must apply the 

guidelines . . . ” Id. at 996 n.1. The district judge made no such express statements here. 

United States v. Maye, 582 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2009), does not help Buckholz either. In 

that case, we remanded because, even though the district judge “never explicitly stated that he 

felt bound by the crack-cocaine policies exemplified in the guidelines, the transcript of the 

sentencing hearing suggests that he may have acted in adherence to those principles.” Id. at 633. 

Thus, even in Maye, there was some indication in the record that the district court felt so 

constrained. Buckholz points to no such acts or other indication in the sentencing record here. 

 The crux of Buckholz’s claim is that the district judge did not state in so many words that 

he could vary from the Guidelines based on a policy disagreement. But a sentencing court need 
No. 16-3473, United States v. Buckholz 

-8- 

not “explicitly recognize that such variances [on policy grounds] are permitted when the court 

has given no indication that it believes they are prohibited and explicitly recognizes the advisory 

nature of the Guidelines.” United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348, 364 (6th Cir. 2009). On the 

record before us, we have no clear indication the district court did not recognize its authority to 

vary below the Guidelines on policy grounds. Remand is not required. 

III. 

Finding no procedural error, we ask whether Buckholz’s sentence is substantively 

reasonable. See Kamper, 478 F.3d at 739. A district court imposes a substantively unreasonable 

sentence by “selecting the sentence arbitrarily, basing the sentence on impermissible factors, 

failing to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors, or giving an unreasonable amount of weight to 

any pertinent factor.” United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 385 (6th Cir. 2005) (footnotes 

omitted). Mindful of our institutional limitations as a reviewing court, we exercise “a great deal 

of deference” when reviewing a defendant’s sentence for substantive reasonableness. United 

States v. Mayberry, 540 F.3d 506, 519 (6th Cir. 2008). We presume Buckholz’s withinGuidelines sentence is reasonable. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389–90 (6th Cir. 

2008) (en banc). 

 Buckholz has not rebutted our presumption. He requested a downward variance to 

60 months, or 108 months below the lowest end of his advisory Guidelines range (168 months). 

He received a sentence of 151 months, at the very bottom of his adjusted Guidelines range as 

calculated after the district court departed downward to Criminal History Category I. Buckholz 

argues this sentence is “greater than necessary” because the district court failed to give 

thoughtful consideration to his individual circumstances in light of the relevant sentencing 

factors. The sentencing record belies this claim. 
No. 16-3473, United States v. Buckholz 

-9- 

 At sentencing, the district judge acknowledged the parties’ memoranda and repeatedly 

sought reasons to justify the significant variance Buckholz was requesting. In response, defense 

counsel argued at length that the Guidelines punish Buckholz’s conduct too harshly, given that 

he was just “a young person sitting in his basement” who looked at pictures but did not abuse 

any children. Defense counsel also emphasized Buckholz’s lack of any significant, or related, 

criminal history. 

 Buckholz detailed his financial struggles and substance abuse, expressed regret for his 

conduct, and explained how being incarcerated helped him achieve sobriety and realize the 

consequences of his behavior. In particular, Buckholz stressed the impact of his heroin 

addiction, and the district judge engaged him on this issue, asking how he got involved with the 

drug, how he paid for it, how he consumed it, and whether he was still using. Buckholz also 

explained how he had researched the programs available at certain detention facilities with an 

eye to improving himself while incarcerated and being “successful in life.” 

 The district judge gave adequate weight to these mitigating facts. He observed that 

Buckholz was a “smart kid” who “live[s] by his wits” and deserved “great” sympathy “for the 

circumstances of [his] young life.” The district judge noted “a huge difference in [Buckholz] 

from the time of [his] arrest,” and credited him for persisting in his struggle with “addiction and 

[his] lack of criminal history, any kind of significant criminal history.” He then reduced 

Buckholz’s criminal history score to Category I. The district judge recognized Buckholz’s 

“willingness to accept responsibility for [his] conduct,” and imposed only the “minimum 

sentence” under the adjusted range in part because Buckholz was “a smart guy” who “just [has] 

to utilize intelligence and positively not negatively.” Finally, he recommended placement at the 

detention facilities Buckholz requested because they offered sex offender treatment and trade 
No. 16-3473, United States v. Buckholz 

-10- 

programs, showing consideration of a sentence that would afford an opportunity for treatment 

and training. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(D). To the extent the district judge did not provide a 

detailed discussion of all Buckholz’s mitigating circumstances when imposing sentence, he “is 

not required to explicitly address every mitigating argument that a defendant makes, particularly 

when those arguments are raised only in passing.” United States v. Madden, 515 F.3d 601, 611 

(6th Cir. 2008). 

 For the district judge, Buckholz’s mitigating circumstances justified a sentence at the 

bottom of the adjusted Guidelines range, but no lower. He disagreed with defense counsel’s 

conclusion that Buckholz was being punished as though he had produced child pornography, 

observing that different Guidelines, and harsher penalties, applied to producers. The district 

judge also stressed the seriousness of the offense, “[p]rominent among the § 3553(a) factors” in 

the child pornography context. Bistline, 665 F.3d at 764. He acknowledged some judges view 

Guidelines sentences in child pornography cases as “awfully harsh,” but Buckholz was not “just 

looking at images” –– he was participating in the “continued spread or distribution” of child 

pornography. Buckholz’s conduct was “so harmful” to the community because the “children in 

the images have received a life sentence of degradation and embarrassment, humiliation and pain 

every time these images – they’re out over the whole world[.]” As this court has also observed, 

producers of child pornography are indeed more culpable, but this fact does not render 

possessors and distributors like Buckholz “barely culpable at all.” Bistline, 665 F.3d at 765. 

 The district judge was clearly skeptical that Buckholz fully appreciated the consequences 

of his behavior. During Buckholz’s allocution, the district judge interjected that Buckholz was 

“talking about everything except what [he] did,” and “kind of minimizing” his conduct. The 

district judge engaged in a dialog with Buckholz regarding his use of a shared folder to distribute 
No. 16-3473, United States v. Buckholz 

-11- 

child pornography videos, insisting that Buckholz knew other people could access those files. 

He concluded Buckholz was “missing something” in that his “addiction didn’t cause [him] to 

view and download child pornography.” Cf. Bistline, 665 F.3d at 765 (remarking that knowing 

possession of child pornography is not a passive act “that happens to a defendant”). And 

although Buckholz’s circumstances were “unique to [him],” they did not distinguish his case 

from the typical case covered by the Guidelines. Thus, the court found that a Guidelines 

sentence would be “consistent with most other sentences that have been imposed” for 

Buckholz’s offense. 

 The district judge was appropriately attentive to a possible sentencing disparity in this 

case in light of Buckholz’s request for a significant downward variance. Buckholz argues the 

district court’s conclusion that a downward variance here would create such a disparity was 

erroneous because below-Guidelines sentences have been imposed and upheld in some other 

child pornography cases in this circuit. The flaw in Buckholz’s reasoning is obvious. Section 

3553(a)(6) concerns national disparities “among defendants with similar records who have been 

found guilty of similar conduct.” The fact that this court has affirmed sentences below the 

Guidelines range in some child pornography cases does not compel the conclusion that it was 

unreasonable to impose a Guidelines sentence in this one. Just as this court has upheld shorter 

sentences for similar conduct, it has also upheld much longer ones. See, e.g., United States v. 

Sprague, 370 F. App’x 638, 645–47 (6th Cir. 2010) (upholding a far-above-Guidelines 360-

month sentence for receiving child pornography). The question on review is not whether the 

district court had the authority to impose a shorter sentence, but whether the district court was 

unreasonable in imposing the sentence it did. 
No. 16-3473, United States v. Buckholz 

-12- 

 The district judge considered Buckholz’s mitigation arguments and provided a sufficient 

explanation for imposing a Guidelines sentence. Although it reached a different result than 

Buckholz wanted, “[a]s we have previously explained, ‘[t]hat the court did not weigh the factors 

raised by Defendant in the manner that he would have liked to have had them weighed does not 

indicate that the court acted improperly or disregarded Defendant’s arguments.’” United States 

v. Houston, 813 F.3d 282, 296 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Hogan, 458 F. App’x 

498, 504 (6th Cir. 2012)). Buckholz’s within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable. 

IV. 

 For these reasons, we affirm defendant’s sentence.