![]() The court then uses the Sentencing Table that is included in the Guidelines to calculate the “sentencing range,” which is stated in terms of months so one offender’s sentencing range might be, say, 36-45 months. Sentencing Commission you can find the current Guidelines on its website.Īs Wikipedia also explains, sentencing under the guidelines is “based primarily on two factors”, which are the conduct associated with the offense” (i.e., what, precisely did the defendant do) and the defendant’s criminal history (i.e., how many, if any, prior criminal convictions does the defendant have). Sentencing Guidelines are written by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which are “rules that set out a uniform sentencing policy” for individuals and entities convicted of federal crimes. As Wikipedia explains, sentencing proceeds under the U.S. Still, Detective Broughton never testified that Shareaza 2.0, in particular, provided users a benefit, such as faster downloading capabilities, when they enabled file sharing.īefore we get into Spriggs’ sentence, why he argued it was excessive, and how the Court of Appeals ruled on his argument, I need to outline the basics of sentencing in the federal criminal justice system. `In many of the software suites that are out there, if you are sharing, sometimes that elevates you to a higher status as it relates if you're looking for a file that belongs to somebody and you happen to be sharing a large amount of files, you'll move up higher in the queue and be able to download somebody quicker than somebody who is, let's say not sharing as many files or maybe has file sharing turned off.’ The detective also described the possible benefits of sharing files: Most of Spriggs's child-pornography collection was located in a shared folder that could be accessed by other Shareaza users. ![]() He explained that the default settings on Shareaza 2.0 automatically provided for reciprocal sharing and required additional steps if a user did not want to share files with others using the program. Law enforcement was unsuccessful when it attempted to download Spriggs's files, and at sentencing no direct evidence was presented that other users downloaded files from Spriggs's child-pornography collection.ĭetective Brian Broughton testified at Spriggs's sentencing hearing. The copy of Shareaza 2.0 on Spriggs's computer was configured to allow peers to download files from his computer. Spriggs downloaded child pornography through use of a peer-to-peer file-sharing program named Shareaza 2.0. This, according to the opinion, is how the prosecution arose: First, I need to explain how Spriggs came to be charged with this crime, since those facts are quite relevant to his challenge to the sentence. Code § 2252(a)(2)”, Timothy Spriggs received a sentence he though was excessive, for reasons we’ll get to in a moment. ![]() After pleading guilty to “one count of receipt of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11 th Circuit 2012). This post is about a case in which the defendant appealed his sentence, claiming it was excessive. Unlike most of my posts, this one isn’t about a defendant who’s trying to suppress evidence or argue that evidence was improperly admitted or otherwise trying to avoid being convicted or trying to have a conviction reversed. Like most of my posts, this is about a criminal case that involved the use of computer technology.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |