Opinion ID: 4525508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonableness of Splettstoeszer’s Sentence

Text: Splettstoeszer contends that his 210-month sentence is substantively unreasonable. “We review all sentences, whether inside or outside the Guidelines range, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.” United States v. Pepper, 518 F.3d 949, 951 (8th Cir. 2008). “[W]here a district court has sentenced a defendant below the advisory guidelines range, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further.” United States v. Spencer, 700 F.3d 317, 322 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Moore, 581 F.3d 681, 684 (8th Cir. 2009)). -4- We regularly uphold sentences similar to Splettstoeszer’s for childpornography convictions. See, e.g., United States v. Sebert, 899 F.3d 639, 640–41 (8th Cir. 2018) (affirming 240-month sentence); Emmert, 825 F.3d at 908, 910 (same); United States v. Moore, 572 F.3d 489, 490, 492 (8th Cir. 2009) (affirming 210-month sentence). But Splettstoeszer claims the district court was influenced by the unduly harsh Guidelines-recommended sentence proposed by the government. The Guidelines, he argues, unfairly generate steep penalties for child pornographers and get in the way of individualized sentencing. And the government, he insists, wanted a long sentence to punish him for his largely unpunished crimes against his daughter and stepdaughter. Contrary to Splettstoeszer’s claims, however, the district court provided an individualized sentence. Relying on the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) — and never indicating a desire to punish Splettstoeszer for other crimes — the court varied downward considerably from the sentence recommended by both the Guidelines and the government. It did not abuse its discretion.