U.S. v. Annoreno

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 480-month term of incarceration on conspiracy to receive and distribute child pornography charges. Dist. Ct. could properly rely on sentencing range set forth in presentence report and was not required to discuss alternative sentencing ranges in said report. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could look to defendant’s reduced mental capacity as factor that might make him less amenable to rehabilitation and properly rejected defendant’s claim that his sentence constituted unwarranted disparity with others who had received sentences of 17 to 22 years. Ct. also found that instant sentence was substantively reasonable in light of defendant's near blindness and fact that statistics suggested that defendant had low recidivism rate.