United States v. David Lebovitz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that section 2A3.1(b)(2)(A) “applies whether the minor ‘victim’ is real, fictitious, or an undercover officer”
• noting that sentencing enhancements in child pornography context for use of computer targets a separate harm than the underlying crime itself
• noting “the well- documented link between the possession of child pornography and the sexual abuse of children”
• upholding application of guidelines sentencing enhancements based on age of child victim even though no child existed
• \Law enforcement investigations have verified that pedophiles almost always collect child pornography or child erotica.\ (emphasis added) (quoting S.Rep. No. 104-358, 104th Cong., 2d Sess., at 12-13 (1996))
• that a defendant “did not get to have sex with the girl because she did not exist is of no consequence to his sentence” because the Guidelines section also applies to attempts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).