U.S. v. Maulding

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to below-guidelines, 240-month term of incarceration on receipt, possession and distribution of child pornography charges even though defendant argued that said sentence was unreasonable because sentencing guideline itself is flawed, and because his criminal history, which contained series of traffic convictions, was overstated. Under Huffstatler, 571 F.3d 620, Dist. Ct. is not required to disregard instant sentencing guideline, although it is free to do so, and instant sentence was reasonable given Dist. Ct.'s consideratioun of factors contained in section 3553(a).