MEMORANDUM & ORDER On July 19, 2018, Dwayne McCaulley (“Defendant”) pled guilty to Count Two of the Indictment. The Court now sentences him and provides a complete statement of reasons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3553(c)(2) of those factors set forth by Congress contained in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). For the reasons discussed below, Dwayne McCaulley is hereby sentenced to time served, five years of supervised release, a fine of $25,000.00, which has been paid, and a $100.00 special assessment. BACKGROUND On August 24, 2017, the Government filed an Indictment charging Dwayne McCaulley with one count of Distribution of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§2252(a)(2) and (b)(1) and one count of Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). Indictment, ECF No. 8. On July 19, 2018, Defendant pled guilty to Count Two of the Indictment pursuant to a plea agreement. See Exhibit 2 (“Plea Agreement”), ECF No. 23. On February 14, 2020, the Court sentenced Defendant to 36 months of incarceration, 3 years of supervised release, a fine of $25,000.00, and a $100.00 special assessment. However, on December 23, 2020, the Second Circuit remanded the case for a full re-sentencing because the Court did not impose the 5-year statutory minimum term of supervised release required by 18 U.S.C. §3583(k). The Court hereby re-sentences Defendant and sets forth its reasons for Defendant’s sentence using the rubric of the 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3553(c)(2). DISCUSSION I. Legal Standard 18 U.S.C. §3553 outlines the procedures for imposing sentence in a criminal case. The “starting point and the initial benchmark” in evaluating a criminal sentence is the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). If and when a district court chooses to impose a sentence outside of the Sentencing Guidelines range, the court “shall state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence, and…the specific reason for the imposition of a sentence different from that described” in the Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. §3553(c)(2). The court must also “state[] with specificity” its reasons for so departing or varying “in a statement of reasons form.” Id. “The sentencing court’s written statement of reasons shall be a simple, fact-specific statement explaining why the guidelines range did not account for a specific factor or factors under §3553(a).” United States v. Davis, 08-CR-0332, 2010 WL 1221709, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010) (Weinstein, J.). Section 3553(a) provides a set of seven factors for the Court to consider in determining what sentence to impose on a criminal defendant. The Court addresses each in turn. II. Analysis A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the History and Characteristics of the Defendant The first §3553(a) factor requires the Court to evaluate “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(1). 1. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense Defendant pled guilty to the offense of Possession of Child Pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). Plea Agreement at 1-2. According to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), ECF No. 28, between March 16, 2015 and February 16, 2016, special agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) downloaded 182 files depicting child pornography, at least 2 of which were videos, from a sharing client on the BitTorrent Peer-to-Peer (“P2P”) program. PSR 8-9. The FBI special agents identified the sharing client as Defendant. Id. 8. The files included, among others, videos and images depicting the sexual abuse of prepubescent girl by adult men and animals: 2. History and Characteristics of the Defendant Defendant, now age 50, was born on August 19, 1971 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. PSR 39. He is one of two children born to Gary Lee McCaulley and Ramona Sharlene (nee Boren) McCaulley. Prior to their retirement, Defendant’ father worked as the head of maintenance at a high school and his mother worked as an inspector at a General Motors plant. Id.; Def.’s Sentencing Mem. at 5, ECF No. 35 (“Def. Mem.”). They are aware of Defendant’s arrest in this case and are supportive. PSR 39; Ltr. from Gary Lee McCaulley & Ramona McCaulley to Hon. Judge William F. Kuntz, II, ECF No. 35-11. At the time of the first sentencing, Defendant’s brother, Gary James McCaulley, resided in Huntington, Indiana and was married with one son. Id. 40. He was employed as a computer numeric controlled machinist. Id.; Def. Mem. at 5. Defendant and his brother were not very close and had only occasional contact, despite being on good terms. PSR 40, N.G. Berrill, Ph.D., New York Center for Neuropsychology & Forensic Behavioral Science, Psycho-Sexual Evaluation at 2, ECF No. 35-1 (“Psycho-Sexual Evaluation”). Defendant’s brother was unaware of Defendant’s arrest in this case. PSR 40. Defendant was raised in a low- to middle-income environment. Id. Although his family was negatively impacted by strikes at General Motors, they “never wanted for anything” and Defendant’s basic material needs were consistently met. Id. 41. Defendant did not report a history of abuse of any kind. Id. Defendant’s family relocated from Oklahoma to Michigan when he was approximately age 2. Id. Defendant moved to Chicago when he was age 21 and remained there until moving to New York City in 2004. Id. After earning his high school diploma in 1989, Defendant attended Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Michigan from 1989 to 1990. Id. 55. He then attended Delta College in University Center, Michigan from August 1990 through December 1991. Although Defendant reports earning an associate degree from Delta College, the school has no record of a degree earned. Id., Def. Mem. at 6. Defendant then attended Saginaw Valley State University in Saginaw County, Michigan from 1991 to 1992, where he studied literature and philosophy, but earned no degree. PSR 55. Defendant married Elaine Paige Rudwell (last name now Casket) in Jefferson, Kentucky on October 12, 1995. Id. 42, Psycho-Sexual Evaluation at 3. The couple divorced in 1998 in Chicago, Illinois because they believed they had married too young, but they ended the relationship on good terms. PSR 42; but see Psycho-Sexual Evaluation at 3 (noting Defendant reported “he is not actually divorced”). Defendant and Ms. Casket have since lost touch. PSR 42. Prior to his incarceration, Defendant maintained regular, well-paid employment since at least 1996, with only intermittent periods of unemployment. PSR
56-67. Further, Defendant reported having been self-employed as a marketing consultant after leaving another position in February of 2019. Id. 56. Defendant’s employment has largely involved technology and marketing. Id.
