U.S. v. IREY, 2009 WL 806860 (11th Cir. March 31, 2008)

Mr. Irey was convicted of using minors outside the United States for the purpose of making child pornography. The defendant made repeated trips to Cambodia on sex tours and videotaped himself having sex with minors, some of which depicted graphic sex acts and torture. The appellate court described the crime as “horrific.” Nevertheless it pointed out that defendant presented evidence through a psychologist who submitted a psychosexual report, that the defendant was treatable, was a medium to medium low risk of recidivism, and could be successful in supervised release after treatment. The defendant’s family testified he was a wonderful husband father and person and that he embraced treatment, he had been acting as a peer mentor to others in narcotics and alcoholic anonymous, and that the family would remain supportive. The district court also noted his age of 50. His guideline range was the statutory maximum of 360 months with a minimum sentence of 180 months, the statutory minimum. Though he was sentenced to 210 months and given a lifetime of supervised release, the government appealed. The Court reaffirmed that a party challenging the sentence has the burden of establishing the sentence is unreasonable in light of both the record and the factors of § 3553(a) factors. It reviewed the procedure a sentencing court must follow: First, consult the sentencing guidelines and calculate the correct guidelines sentence; Second, consider the factors listed in 3553(a). The Court found no procedural error in determining the applicable guidelines sentence; it rejected the government’s argument that the sentence was too lenient. The Court said that even though it may disagree with a sentence, it would not second guess the district court decision where as here the sentencing judge took the sentence seriously, proceeded thoughtfully and the sentence was reasoned. The court did consider the factors of §3553(a). The Court of Appeals did not second guess the district court as it respects the district court as a sentencer and accepted the sentence as it “was within the outside borders for a reasonable sentence for this kind of case.”