<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Community Defense Counsel &#187; Topic: Sentencing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/topic-sentencing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:30:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Sixth Circuit: 1 Day Child Pornography Sentence Unreasonable</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/02/29/sixth-circuit-1-day-child-pornography-sentence-unreasonable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/02/29/sixth-circuit-1-day-child-pornography-sentence-unreasonable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:23:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 6th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Robinson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2672</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2012/02/sixth-circuit-1-day-child-pornography-sentence-unreasonable.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top">Findlaw</a>: What’s an appropriate sentence for a defendant who pleads guilty to possessing over 7,100 images of child pornography? While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to answer that precise question this week, it ruled that a one-day sentence and a $100 fine landed on the lax side of the child pornography sentence spectrum. &#124; <a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0056p-06.pdf">U.S. v. Robinson</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/02/29/sixth-circuit-1-day-child-pornography-sentence-unreasonable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second Circuit panel reverses child porn restitution award to &#8220;Amy&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Aumais]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2011/09/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy.html">Sentencing Law and Policy:</a>: The Second Circuit has today issued an important new opinion in the on-going saga concerning whether and how the kids victimized by being featured in illegal child pornography can secure restitution awards from defendants who downloaded these pictures via the internet.  The panel opinion in <em>US v. Aumais</em>, No. 10-3160 (2d Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (<a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/4a1e8328-fb5b-47a0-aa35-9f97fc90fb17/1/doc/10-3160_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/4a1e8328-fb5b-47a0-aa35-9f97fc90fb17/1/hilite/">available here</a>), gets started this way . . . 
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3rd Circuit upholds child porn sentence reduction, discusses criticism of sentencing guidelines</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/appeals-courts-criticize-child-porn-sentencing-guidelines/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/appeals-courts-criticize-child-porn-sentencing-guidelines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:31:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 3rd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Grober]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/091318p.pdf"><em>United States v. Grober</em></a>, No 09-1318 (3rd Cir. Oct. 26, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/appeals-courts-criticize-child-porn-sentencing-guidelines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: Recipient of child pornography can challenge &#8220;sex offender&#8221; label prior to release and registration</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/20/5th-circuit-recipient-of-child-pornography-can-challenge-sex-offender-label-prior-to-release-and-registration/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/20/5th-circuit-recipient-of-child-pornography-can-challenge-sex-offender-label-prior-to-release-and-registration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sex Offender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Pearson v. Holder]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-10808-CV0.wpd.pdf"><em>Pearson v. Holder</em></a>, No. 09-10808 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/20/5th-circuit-recipient-of-child-pornography-can-challenge-sex-offender-label-prior-to-release-and-registration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NH Supreme Court: sex offender can&#8217;t attend church even with chaperone</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/17/nh-supreme-court-sex-offender-cant-attend-church-even-with-chaperone/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/17/nh-supreme-court-sex-offender-cant-attend-church-even-with-chaperone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:54:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New Hampshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: New Hampshire v. Perfetto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2010/2010096perfe.pdf"><em>New Hampshire v. Perfetto</em></a>, No. 2009-647 (N.H. Sept. 17, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/09/17/nh-supreme-court-sex-offender-cant-attend-church-even-with-chaperone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Case highlights inconsistency between N.Y. statutory rape laws, federal child porn laws</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/case-highlights-inconsistency-between-n-y-statutory-rape-laws-federal-child-porn-laws/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/case-highlights-inconsistency-between-n-y-statutory-rape-laws-federal-child-porn-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:57:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464239348">Law.com</a>: "A federal appeals panel has thrown out a child pornography conviction that was based on explicit photographs texted by a 17-year-old to her field-hockey coach. The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals held there was no evidence that defendant Todd Broxmeyer asked 17-year-old 'A.W.' to take the pictures, and therefore no evidence that he 'produced' them as defined by the federal child pornography statutes." &#124; <a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9ea04a55-5ad3-43fd-9a1c-abe4fb26fae1/1/doc/09-1457-cr_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9ea04a55-5ad3-43fd-9a1c-abe4fb26fae1/1/hilite/"><em>USA v. Broxmeyer</em></a>, No. 09-1457-cr (2nd Cir. Aug. 3, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/case-highlights-inconsistency-between-n-y-statutory-rape-laws-federal-child-porn-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Split en banc 11th Circuit rules child molester&#8217;s 17½-year sentence substantively unreasonable</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/29/split-en-banc-11th-circuit-rules-child-molesters-17%c2%bd-year-sentence-substantively-unreasonable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/29/split-en-banc-11th-circuit-rules-child-molesters-17%c2%bd-year-sentence-substantively-unreasonable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:25:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Irey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2409</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200810997op2.pdf">U.S. v. Irey</a></em>, No. 08-10997 (11th Cir. July 29, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/29/split-en-banc-11th-circuit-rules-child-molesters-17%c2%bd-year-sentence-substantively-unreasonable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit: A special condition of supervised released prohibiting possession of all materials containing nudity is stricken on overbreadth grounds</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/21/8th-circuit-a-special-condition-of-supervised-released-prohibiting-possession-of-all-materials-containing-nudity-is-stricken-on-overbreadth-grounds/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/21/8th-circuit-a-special-condition-of-supervised-released-prohibiting-possession-of-all-materials-containing-nudity-is-stricken-on-overbreadth-grounds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Nebraska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nudity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Simons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/2010072101.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Simons</em></a>, No. 09-2142 (8th Cir. July 21, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/21/8th-circuit-a-special-condition-of-supervised-released-prohibiting-possession-of-all-materials-containing-nudity-is-stricken-on-overbreadth-grounds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defiant judge takes on child pornography law</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/21/defiant-judge-takes-on-child-pornography-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/21/defiant-judge-takes-on-child-pornography-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 17:59:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: USA v. Dorvee]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/nyregion/22judge.html?pagewanted=all">Defiant judge takes on child pornography law</a>
New York Times, A. G. Sulzberger, 5.21.2010

"In his 43-year career as a federal  judge, Jack B. Weinstein has come to be identified by his efforts to  combat what he calls ‘the unnecessary cruelty of the law.’ His most recent crusade is particularly striking because of the beneficiary: a man who has amassed a vast collection of child pornography."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/05/21/defiant-judge-takes-on-child-pornography-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Solutions to the Legal Dilemma Caused by Sexting</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-solutions-to-the-legal-dilemma-caused-by-sexting/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-solutions-to-the-legal-dilemma-caused-by-sexting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1926</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Average Teenager or Sex Offender? Solutions to the Legal Dilemma Caused by Sexting</em>
Shannon Shafron-Perez, 26 J. Marshall J. Computer &#38; Info. L. 431 (2009)

"This Comment broadly considers the failure of the law to adapt to developments in technology and communication, untangles the different approaches taken by a sample of states, and considers which legal remedy is most appropriate."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-solutions-to-the-legal-dilemma-caused-by-sexting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

