United States v. Camiscione

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing district court because it “failed to consider how its sentence provided adequate ‘general deterrence’ to the popula tion at large”
• describing Camiscione as a thirty-three year old single male living with his mother with no real friends and who had never dated a woman
• holding one-day sentence substantively unreasonable
• “General deterrence is one of the key purposes of sentencing, and the district court abused its discretion when it failed to give that matter its proper weight.” (quotation and other marks omitted)
• “General deterrence . . . is one of the key purposes of sentencing.” (quoting United States v. Medearis, 451 F.3d 918, 920–21 (8th Cir. 2006))
• “[I]t is not logical to justify a more lenient sentence on the basis that [the defendant] did not make or distribute child pornography or molest a child.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).