U.S. v. Coopman

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 151-month term of incarceration on charge of receipt and possession of child pornography even though defendant argued that more reasonable sentence was minimum 60-month term. Record did not support defendant's claim that Dist. Ct. applied improper presumption of reasonableness with respect to sentencing guidelines, or that Dist. Ct. failed to consider defendant's mitigation evidence. Dist. Ct. could also reject opinion of defendant's expert witness, who asserted belief that defendant was unlikely to exhibit sexual predatory behavior, where witness was not expert in child pornography, and where witness had failed to recognize harm associated with child pornography.