United States v. Dorvee
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
616 F.3d 174 (2010)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Justin Dorvee (defendant) conversed online with individuals he believed were 14-year-old males but who were actually undercover police officers. Dorvee engaged in sexually explicit conversations with the officers and sent computer images of boys and videos of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. A search warrant was executed at Dorvee’s home. The officers seized computer disks and a computer containing several thousand images and 100 to 125 videos depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Dorvee traded these videos and images with other individuals on the Internet. Dorvee pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography. The presentence report calculated a sentencing-guidelines range of 262 to 327 months by adding enhancements under United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). § 2G2.2 for material involving a prepubescent minor or a minor under 12 years old, distribution to a minor that was intended to induce the minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct, material that portrayed sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence, the use of a computer, and possession of 600 or more images. Dorvee was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 240 months. On appeal, Dorvee challenged his sentence as substantively unreasonable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.