U.S. v. Hodge

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 1,380-month term of incarceration on multiple child pornography offenses, even though Dist. Ct. had failed to specifically mention fact that defendant’s psychiatrist opined that defendant’s prior history of sexual and psychological abuse as child contributed to his decision to commit charged offense, or that defendant was unlikely to re-offend. Record showed that Dist. Ct. could properly discount psychiatrist opinion, where defendant had filtered information to said psychiatrist, and that Dist. Ct. had actually made reference to said opinion. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not need to address every discrete point in psychological report tendered on behalf of defendant.