United States v. Nash

District Court, N.D. Alabama
1 F. Supp. 3d 1240 (2014)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A sentencing court has the discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence substantially below the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range for a child pornography offense when the specific circumstances, such as consensual 'sexting' between a young adult and a minor in a legally permissible relationship, would make a Guideline sentence unreasonable and 'greater than necessary'.

Facts:

John Bradley Nash, a 22-year-old man, was in a consensual and legal sexual relationship with E.L., a 16-year-old girl.
Under Alabama state law, the age of consent is sixteen.
E.L. took four sexually explicit photographs of herself.
E.L. sent these four photographs to Nash via text message, an act commonly referred to as 'sexting'.
Investigators found the four images on Nash’s cell phone.
There was no evidence that Nash distributed or shared the images with anyone else.
A forensic psychosexual evaluation concluded Nash did not fit the profile of a pedophile and noted he was emotionally immature with untreated ADHD at the time of the offense.

Procedural Posture:

The government filed a one-count information against John Bradley Nash in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, a federal trial court.
The information charged Nash with one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B).
Nash pleaded guilty to the charge.
The U.S. Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation Report, calculating an advisory Guideline sentencing range of 24 to 30 months of imprisonment.
The District Court held a sentencing hearing to determine Nash's final sentence.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a sentence within the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines 'greater than necessary' under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for a young adult defendant who possessed child pornography consisting solely of four images sent to him by his sixteen-year-old girlfriend during a consensual and legal sexual relationship?

Opinions:

Majority - Bowdre, J.

Yes. A sentence within the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines is greater than necessary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for this offense. The court has discretion to vary from the Guidelines when they produce an unreasonable result, and the Guidelines for child pornography are 'flawed' and 'eccentric,' particularly when applied to 'sexting' cases. Applying the § 3553(a) factors, the court found the nature of the offense (consensual sexting) and the characteristics of the defendant (young, immature, non-predatory, with untreated ADHD) were fundamentally dissimilar to the conduct of typical child pornography offenders targeted by Congress. The court reasoned that a Guideline sentence would create 'unwarranted similarities' in sentencing for dissimilar conduct, contrary to the principles in Gall v. United States. Considering the severe and unalterable collateral consequence of lifetime sex offender registration in Alabama, a sentence of 60 months probation is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the purposes of sentencing.

Analysis:

This sentencing memorandum is a significant example of a district court exercising its judicial discretion post-United States v. Booker to craft a sentence it deems just, even when it requires a substantial downward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. The opinion highlights a growing judicial critique of the congressionally-mandated child pornography guidelines, arguing they are overly harsh and ill-suited for the modern phenomenon of 'sexting' among young people. This case provides a clear framework for future defendants in similar situations to argue for leniency by focusing on the specific § 3553(a) factors, contrasting their conduct with that of more culpable offenders, and emphasizing the lifelong collateral consequences of a conviction.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Nash (2014)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"