U.S. v. Roush

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to below-Guidelines sentence of 188-month imprisonment on transportation of child pornography charge and concurrent 120-month sentence on possession of child pornography charge, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. failed to properly identify appropriate Guideline range and failed to consider defendant’s primary argument in mitigation. Record showed that Dist. Ct. actually calculated appropriate Guideline range, and properly did not resolve any claim that defendant deserved third level of acceptance of responsibility credit, since government did not move for Dist. Ct. to award said third credit. Also, Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in failing to consider defendant’s mitigation arguments in statement he made after Dist. Ct. had announced his sentence, since: (1) defendant was not entitled to second allocation; and (2) fact that Dist. Ct. had allowed defendant to make post-sentencing statement did not trigger obligation to reconsider sentence. Moreover, defendant presented essentially same substance in post-sentence statement that he made in prior allocution.