Background
The defendant, Lucio Daza Marquez, pleaded guilty to one count of possessing and two counts of receiving child pornography. He possessed 260 videos and 29 images depicting children between three and twelve years old. The district court sentenced him to 121 months, a term below the advisory guidelines range of 151 to 188 months. Marquez appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
The court’s reasoning
The court addressed three procedural arguments. First, it acknowledged that the district court erred by deferring to sentencing commentary that counted each video as 75 images rather than calculating frames per Kluge. However, the court found no plain error because the error did not affect substantial rights; even using the correct frame-rate calculation, the number of images would have far exceeded the 600-image threshold for the five-level enhancement. Second, the court upheld the district court’s finding that a defense psychologist lacked credibility, noting the defendant’s own admissions contradicted the expert’s conclusions. Third, the court rejected the claim that the district court misstated the defendant’s views on counseling, finding no reasonable probability that this affected the sentence. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court found the sentence reasonable given the decade-long duration of the offense, the large volume of material, the young age of the victims, and the defendant’s sophisticated efforts to conceal his conduct.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that procedural errors in sentencing calculations may not warrant reversal if the outcome would remain the same under the correct calculation. It also confirms that district courts may reject expert testimony on recidivism risk when contradicted by the defendant’s own conduct and statements.