United States v. Bistline

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a district court’s disagreement with §2G2.2 on policy grounds was not sufficient to justify the downward variance granted
• remarking that knowing possession of child pornography is not a passive act “that happens to a defendant”
• finding that the district court “did not seriously attempt to refute” the judgments underlying the guidelines
• explaining that an extreme variance based on criminal history that is already accounted for in the Guidelines is inconsistent with the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
• reasoning that courts have the authority to reject the Guidelines range selected by Congress for child pornography offenses, but concluding that the district court “did not seriously attempt to refute” the policy and value judgments underlying the Guidelines
• vacating a sentence imposed by a district court that had accepted a similar argument regarding this § 2G2.2 enhancement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).