## Facts

- Justin K. Dorvee pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A).
- Dorvee communicated online with individuals he believed were 14-year-old boys who were actually undercover officers; the conversations included sexual content and exchanges of images and videos.
- In communications with “Seth,” Dorvee expressed interest in meeting to photograph and engage in sexual conduct, and he arrived at a planned meeting location with a camera before being arrested.
- A search of Dorvee’s residence uncovered several thousand images and approximately 100–125 videos depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, which Dorvee had traded online.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court committed procedural error by failing to properly calculate and apply the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 in light of the statutory maximum.
2. Whether a 240-month statutory-maximum sentence for this non-production distribution offense was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), given the operation of § 2G2.2 and the record evidence.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
- The court held the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court did not properly calculate the operative Guidelines range once the statutory maximum capped the sentence.
- The court held the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the statutory maximum treated Dorvee as among the most serious offenders without adequate differentiation based on his conduct and the record.

## Legal Principles

- A correct Guidelines calculation is a required starting point for federal sentencing; misapprehending the effect of a statutory maximum on the Guidelines range constitutes significant procedural error.
- When the calculated Guidelines range exceeds the statutory maximum, the statutory maximum becomes the effective Guidelines sentence; characterizing that maximum sentence as “below-Guidelines” is erroneous.
- U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 warrants careful scrutiny because commonly applicable enhancements (e.g., computer use and image volume) can drive ranges to the statutory maximum for many defendants, reducing meaningful distinctions among offenders.
- A within-Guidelines sentence under § 2G2.2 is not presumptively reasonable; it may be substantively unreasonable if it is greater than necessary under § 3553(a) and rests on unsupported assessments such as speculative future dangerousness.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit required resentencing because the district court both miscalculated the operative Guidelines framework under the statutory cap and imposed an unduly harsh statutory-maximum sentence that, given § 2G2.2’s structure and the record, exceeded the range of permissible outcomes under § 3553(a).


United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2010)