Opinion ID: 712913
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Atypicality

Text: 17 The court also based its decision to depart from the Guidelines upon a finding that Barton's conduct was atypical and fell outside the heartland, or the set of typical cases embodying the conduct that each guideline describes. U.S.S.G. ch. 1, pt. A, subpt. 4(b), p.s. First, it opined that the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) was to eradicate the production and distribution of materials involving the sexual exploitation of minors; while Barton's receipt of the videotape fell within the literal scope of the statute, it was somewhat removed from the core case which is contemplated by the statutes. The court also viewed Barton's circumstances as atypical because there was no evidence that he was a pedophile or had ever sexually abused children. 18 The Child Protection Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 2251 et seq., defines a number of crimes involving the sexual exploitation and abuse of children. It includes provisions proscribing the sale and purchase of children for use in the production of child pornography; the production of child pornography; the publication of offers to receive or to distribute child pornography; the transportation, shipment, receipt and distribution of child pornography in interstate commerce; the possession of child pornography with intent to distribute; and the simple possession of child pornography. The Commission's sentencing scheme for offenses involving the sexual exploitation of minors mirrors Congress's statutory framework and recommends separate offense levels for each crime. See U.S.S.G. ch. 2, pt. G, subpt. 2. 19 In light of the specificity of the statute and the Guidelines, the First Circuit concluded that the Sentencing Commission had contemplated that § 2G2.2 would apply to a mere passive offender who has not engaged in distribution of pornography on a significant scale or for pecuniary gain. United States v. Deane, 914 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir.1990) (denying downward departure for an individual engaged in the noncommercial exchange of child-pornographic materials through the mails). But see United States v. Bierley, 922 F.2d 1061, 1068 (3d Cir.1990) (holding that a recipient of child pornography might be entitled to a downward departure on an analogy to § 3B1.2 (mitigating role in the offense)). The Commission clearly foresaw that § 2G2.2 would extend to an individual in Barton's circumstances. 20 We disagree with the court's conclusion that Barton deserved a downward departure because he had never sexually abused children. Other courts have been unwilling to make a broad generalization that those convicted of receiving child pornography also ordinarily abuse children. United States v. Studley, 907 F.2d 254, 258 (1st Cir.1990) (denying a downward departure to defendant convicted of ordering child pornography by mail despite the court's finding that he was not a child molester). Furthermore, section 2G2.2 permits the sentencing judge to add a five-level enhancement to the sentence of an individual convicted of receiving or distributing child pornography [i]f the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4). Inasmuch as the offense to which Barton pleaded guilty (receipt of child pornography) did not contemplate sexual abuse of children, we find that he is not entitled to a departure merely because he did not commit an additional crime.