United States v. Mark Kiefer

Good Law
760 F.3d 926·2014 WL 3635008·14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8304·2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14137
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 24, 201413-50182California2,454 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nguyen, J.

Sentencing in child pornography cases can be controversial. In this case, however, it is not. Mark Robert Kiefer was indicted and, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to one count of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 . Under the plea agreement, Kiefer reserved the right to appeal the constitutionality of § 2G2.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) and the five-year mandatory minimum sentence codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2252 (b)(1). The district court sentenced Kiefer to sixty-three months imprisonment pursuant to § 2G2.2 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553 .

We conclude that § 2G2.2 neither violates the separation of powers doctrine nor conflicts with § 3553. Further, we hold that the district court’s application of a two-level enhancement for the use of a computer under § 2G2.2(b)(6) does not result in impermissible double counting. In so holding, we join a number of our sister circuits that have addressed this question and unanimously reached the same conclusion. Finally, because the district court properly applied § 2G2.2, Kiefer lacks standing to challenge the constitutionality of the five-year mandatory minimum as it did not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.