United States v. Stephen Remy Mueller

Good Law
463 F.3d 887·2006 WL 2573720·2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 22850
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 8, 200605-10180California3,062 words

Opinion

Opinion

Clifton, J.

The question presented in this case is whether the district court is authorized to order probation under the probation stat ute, 18 U.S.C. § 3561 , for a defendant convicted of receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252 , which provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of incarceration. Section 2252 establishes a mandatory minimum sentence of five years of incarceration but does not explicitly preclude probation. Probation is precluded for this conviction under the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.” or “Sentencing Guidelines”), and Mueller concedes that probation was not available as an alternative at the time of sentencing, when the district court was required to adhere to the Sentencing Guidelines. In the wake of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), however, the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, and Defendant argues that nothing precludes the district court from imposing probation instead of the minimum mandatory sentence. We disagree. Because such an accidental byproduct of Booker would contradict clearly manifested congressional intent, we hold that probation is 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.