Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Cameron, 1st Cir. (2016)
United States v. Cameron, 1st Cir. (2016)
United States v. Cameron, 1st Cir. (2016)
He was subsequently
Cameron
court
did
not
adequately
consider
Cameron's
Cameron
-2-
sentence
disparity
with
similar
cases
and
was
therefore
substantively unreasonable.
We affirm the district court's sentence.
I.
A.
BACKGROUND
imprisonment.
2012, this Court held that the district court erred when it
admitted certain evidence in violation of Cameron's rights under
the Confrontation Clause.
We
Id. at 626.
-3-
B.
for more than two weeks, and during that time, he attempted to
cash two forged checks for $42,000 and $32,000.
The district
court found that Cameron "fled the jurisdiction with the specific
intent to avoid the resentencing hearing that the First Circuit
ordered."
Cameron was eventually arrested in New Mexico, and on
January 2, 2013, the Government charged Cameron with criminal
contempt in violation of 18 U.S.C. 401(3).
counts that this Court vacated and moved for resentencing on the
remaining seven counts and sentencing on the count for criminal
contempt.
2014,
before
holding
sentencing
hearing,
On
the
-4-
Cameron's
offense
level
under
the
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
only 179 pornographic images of minors, and so it applied a threelevel enhancement under USSG 2G2.2(b)(7)(B), rather than the
four-level enhancement sought by the Government.
Second, the district court determined that some of the
179
images
contained
sadistic
or
masochistic
depictions
and
the
district
court
applied
two-level
the
obstruction
of
justice
enhancement
in
the
Guideline
-5-
As
the
district
court
explained
at
the
subsequent
To
that,
the
district
court
added
fourteen-level
district
court
reserved
judgment
on
"the
total
district
court
held
sentencing
hearing
on
The
It
sentencing
disparities
among
similarly
situated
doing
so
individualized."
"because
the
circumstances
are
so
highly
[it
was]
familiar
with"
from
Cameron's
briefing
and
did
"not
speak
well
of
the
defendant's
character."
-7-
ANALYSIS
Cameron's
sentencing
acceptance
hearing,
of
penalized
responsibility
him
for
going
at
his
second
to
trial,
and
-8-
argues
that
the
district
court
committed
U.S. 85, 88 (2007), for the proposition "that having the guidelines
as the 'starting point' [for a sentence] would not adequately
ensure . . . uniformity."
misreads
Kimbrough
and
our
precedents.
resentencing."
Cir. 2010).
Here,
Sentencing
the
Guidelines
Cameron's sentence.
district
district
court's
as
its
court
starting
calculation,
correctly
point
treated
in
the
calculating
which
was
favorable
to
Cameron
The district
the district court did not credit him for accepting responsibility,
penalized Cameron for going to trial, and improperly considered
Cameron's former position as a prosecutor.
The record shows that the district court did not ignore
Cameron's citations or sentencing data.
-10-
that
it
"reviewed
helpful memorandum."
carefully
[Cameron's]
extensive
and
F.3d 588, 592 (1st Cir. 2011) ("A reviewing court should be
reluctant to read too much into a district court's failure to
respond explicitly to particular sentencing arguments. Instead,
the reviewing court must assay the record as a whole to gauge the
sentencing judge's thought process.").
Cameron's other assertions are likewise misplaced.
The
acceptance
was
"form
of
conviction
conversion."
Finally,
-11-
merely did not benefit from the Guideline reductions that might
have applied for cooperating and pleading guilty.
The
district
court
specifically
stated
that
it
court's
thoroughness
procedural unreasonableness.
B.
forecloses
Cameron's
The
claims
of
United
Gall,
552
U.S.
at
51).
This
Court
recognizes
the
-12-
judgment
call,"
and
we
"defer
to
the
sentence
as
United States v.
The
rationale for the 165-month sentence, which was well below the
Guidelines
range,
and
adopted
its
well-reasoned
-13-
sentencing
Cameron's
disparity
argument
specifically,
was
certainly
Cameron's sentence, by
King, 741
Id. at 310.
CONCLUSION
Citing United States v. Stone, 575 F.3d 83, 97 (1st Cir. 2009),
in which we criticized -- but upheld -- a sentence imposed by this
same district judge, Cameron declares that this district judge
"continue[s] to impose harsh sentences for first time offenders in
CP cases." In light of Cameron's remark, we note that the district
court stated at Cameron's 2011 sentencing hearing that it "take[s]
that directive from the appellate court with seriousness," and
discussed Stone at that hearing and in its 2011 sentencing order,
including this Court's criticism of the Stone sentence.
4
-14-