UNITED STATES v. DOLVEN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-02-02No. No. 20-1144

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the 360-month prison sentence, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court and rejecting Dolven's arguments regarding the reasonableness of his sentence under both policy and disparity theories.

Matthew Dolven pleaded guilty to two child-pornography offenses—production and distribution—and received a 360-month prison sentence. On appeal, Dolven challenged the reasonableness of his sentence, arguing both that the sentencing guidelines for child-pornography crimes are excessively harsh as a matter of policy and that his sentence creates unjustified disparities compared to other offenders.

The appellate court rejected Dolven's arguments. The trial court had already applied downward adjustments to Dolven's sentence based on mitigating circumstances, and the court found no abuse of discretion in declining to reduce it further. The court also determined that Dolven failed to show the sentence was unreasonable on policy grounds alone, nor did he demonstrate that his sentence created unwarranted disparities—a claim that requires proof that he and comparable offenders are similarly situated in both conduct and criminal history.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a 360-month sentence for child-pornography production and distribution is unreasonable
Whether sentencing guidelines for child-pornography offenses may be varied downward on policy grounds
Whether the sentence creates unwarranted disparities between similarly situated offenders

Procedural posture

Dolven appealed his 360-month prison sentence following his guilty plea to child-pornography production and distribution charges.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

Matthew Dolven received a 360-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to two child-pornography counts. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a), (e) (production); 2252(a)(2), (b)(1) (distribution). Although Dolven argues that his sentence is unreasonable, we affirm.

The district court

varied downward after considering multiple mitigating factors. See United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (“[The defendant] must show more than the fact that the district court disagreed with his view of what weight ought to be accorded [to] certain sentencing factors.”). “In these circumstances, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not varying downward [even] further.” United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009). Dolvens other arguments fare no better. Although he complains that the Sentencing Guidelines for child-pornography offenses are “overly punitive,” the district court had no obligation to vary downward on pure “policy grounds,” even if it could have done so. United States v. Black, 670 F.3d 877, 882 (8th Cir. 2012). Nor has he demonstrated that a 360-month prison sentence creates “unwarranted sentence disparities.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6); see United States v. Carr, 895 F.3d 1083, 1091 (8th Cir. 2018) (“[A] sentencing[-]disparity argument requires a showing that the [defendant] and his comparators are similar in conduct and record.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

FOOTNOTES

. The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

PER CURIAM.