Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing 240-month term of incarceration on charge of production of child pornography, where said sentence was based, in part, on 4-level enhancement under section 2G2.1(b)(4) of USSG that stemmed from finding that certain photograph of defendant’s 12-year-old victim inserting handle of screwdriver into her vagina was sadistic or masochistic image. While defendant argued that said picture, although distasteful and offensive, did not qualify as sadistic or masochistic for purposes of section 2G2.1(b)(4) of USSG, Ct. found that said picture qualified for instant enhancement, where image connoted violence of sort that would likely appeal to sadistic audience. Fact that victim indicated that she did not suffer any pain at time of picture did not require different result.

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 92-month term of incarceration on charge of unlawful possession of firearm, where said sentence was based, in part, on imposition of 4-level enhancement under section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) of USSG arising out of defendant’s use of firearm in connection with another felony offense, as well as Dist. Ct.’s denial of proposed 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility based on defendant’s guilty plea. Dist. Ct. could properly rely on hearsay statements from female individual, who claimed that defendant held gun to her head while demanding sex, to support section 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement where, although individual gave differing versions of incident, her main allegation that defendant pointed gun to her head was supported by other evidence. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly reject defendant’s request for reduction in offense level based on his guilty plea, where Dist. Ct. also found that defendant was not truthful when denying that he had held gun to individual’s head. Dist. Ct. erred, though, in imposing 15 standard conditions of supervised release, where Dist. Ct. had failed to provide any explanations for imposing said conditions.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s guilty verdict on charge of conspiracy to distribute 100 pounds of marijuana, even though defendant argued that record showed, at most, existence of buyer/seller relationship. Jury could properly find existence of conspiracy where: (1) defendant bought large amounts of marijuana on credit from his supplier on at least six occasions; (2) said purchases occurred on regular time intervals; and (3) defendant instructed another individual to send large amounts of cash on defendant’s behalf to defendant’s supplier.