Source: masslawyersweekly.com 4/11/25
Where a defendant who pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography was sentenced to time served (21 days) and seven years of supervised release, the defendant must be resentenced because the district court did not adequately explain its basis for granting such an extraordinary downward variance.
“Defendant Carlos Vázquez-Narvaez (‘Vázquez’) pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2252A(a)(5)(B). For that offense, the probation office calculated a guideline sentencing range of fifty-one to sixty-three months of imprisonment and five years to life of supervised release. Although the district court agreed that the guideline range had been correctly calculated, it sentenced Vázquez to time served — twenty-one days — and seven years of supervised release. The government now appeals, arguing that this sentence is substantively unreasonable because it lacks a plausible sentencing rationale. Concluding that the district court did not adequately explain its basis for granting such an extraordinary downward variance, we vacate and remand for resentencing. …
“By any measure, the downward variance in this case — from fifty-one months (the low end of the guideline range) to twenty-one days (time served) — was extraordinary. … Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the district court to provide a sentencing rationale that was correspondingly thorough and cogent. …
“The similarities between [United States v. Crespo-Rios, 787 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2015)] and the case before us are striking. In this case, when explaining its decision to vary significantly from the calculated guideline range, the district court focused almost exclusively on Vázquez’s efforts at cooperation and rehabilitation following his arrest. Certainly, the district court was entitled to consider those efforts, which are relevant to Vázquez’s character. … However, as in Crespo-Rios, given the degree of the variance, the district court could not rely solely on those efforts to justify the sentence imposed. … Instead, the court was required to ‘explain how it had weighed the other factors laid out in §3553(a)’ and articulate ‘why this particular sentence was appropriate in light of’ those other factors. …
…
“We do not suggest with the above analysis that the district court was careless in imposing its sentence. The judge noted that she was drawing on her years of experience as a magistrate judge, during which she had handled many child pornography cases, and she made clear that she had ‘thought a lot about [Vázquez’s] sentence.’ These sentencing decisions are difficult, particularly in the first instance. We are mindful of that reality. And we offer no opinion on whether the sentence imposed, if supported by a more plausible and comprehensive explanation, would be reasonable. The government has not asked us to do so. We simply hold that the explanation provided was insufficient to justify the extreme downward variance.
“Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing consistent with the principles set forth herein.”
So… when an excessive sentence is based entirely on vindictiveness, ignorance, and animus, everyone is perfectly fine with that (revel in it, even).
However… when a lighter sentence is based on reason, knowledge, and empathy, apparently, that simply will not do.
The gist I get from this is that everyone won’t stop complaining because they think the court “failed to justify” not throwing a man in prison for decades of his life before slamming him with an eternity of supervision.
Just goes to show how backward and deranged most people in this nation typically are.
Oh gee, now judges have to provide their reasons when their decisions are too light. Will DA’s have to provide their reasons why they over charge and go for cut throat sentences with fake or no evidence besides the ” trust us we are the government.” ?
“…guideline sentencing range of fifty-one to sixty-three months of imprisonment and five years to life of supervised release” for possessing an image, which he presumably did not produce or distribute. This country has gone mad.
I don’t condone any form of harm to minors or anyone, but this helps no one, including the minor in the image. Our nation is obsessed.
A thinking person’s judge…like the one in CA who shall remain nameless who did the same with the collegiate swimmer case and then was voted out because of their actions in sentencing. The court is begging people to be difficult in their cases if they know they are going to be sentenced to the hilt. This stinks of politicization of the legal system by those who appealed the sentence and those who are vacating the original sentence for a harsher sentence.
The judge did provide an adequate explanation for her “downward variance”, but the masses say, “Nay. Not enough punishment is laid.”
Maybe the judge has noticed a pattern and has not the studies to help articulate how once a defendant is exposed for a sex crime, then the the recidivism rate is very low such a 3 to 3.5%. Maybe ACSOL, NARSOL, or FAC can send the judge and Massachusetts courts all of these studies that were not readily available for the US vs Crespo-Rios (2015) case, which was a decade ago.