Second Circuit, on third pass of child porn sentence, affirms 25-year prison term it calls "barbaric without being all that unusual"

Back in June I noted here a Second Circuit panel opinion in US v. Sawyer, No. 15-2276, in which a split Second Circuit reversed a sentence of 300 months of imprisonment for the offenses of producing child pornography and receiving child pornography because the district court, even at a second sentencing, insufficiently addressed statutory sentencing factors and failed "to give sufficient downward weight to the effect of the severe sexual abuse Sawyer endured at home throughout his childhood."  The third time around, the district judge gave a different rationale for imposing a 25-year sentence, and this new split Second Circuit opinion now affirms in an opinion by Judge Jacobs that starts and ends this way:

Jesse Sawyer, having pled guilty to sexual exploitation of children and receipt of child pornography, was originally sentenced primarily to 30 years in prison and a lifetime of supervised release. We ruled that that sentence was shockingly high given Sawyer’s harrowing upbringing and comparatively low danger to the community, and remanded to the district court for resentencing. The district court disagreed with our analysis but found that Sawyer’s exemplary record as an inmate justified a reduction to 25 years. Sawyer returned the matter to our docket, challenging his new sentence on both reasonableness and law‐of‐ the‐case grounds. By order of July 30, 2018, we affirmed Sawyer’s new sentence. We now explain that we did so because the district court effectively complied with our instruction to significantly reduce Sawyer’s sentence and because that sentence is now within the realm of reasonableness....

On this second appeal, Sawyer continues to protest the reasonableness of his sentence, but we cannot bring ourselves to call it shocking under governing law. He faced a mandatory minimum of fifteen years. Regrettably, twenty‐five years is no great departure from sentences routinely imposed in federal courts for comparable offenses.... The sentence is barbaric without being all that unusual.

The dissent by Judge Crawford includes these paragraphs at its start:

On resentencing, the district court declined to give any additional weight to either of the factors we identified. The majority accurately describes the district court’s rejection of the appeals court ruling. I intend no criticism of the trial judge.  She was candid about the reasons for her decision and recommended that the case be referred to another judge if we were to conclude that she erred in rejecting our first ruling.  That was an appropriate course of action, and we can ask no more of a judge who cannot in good conscience follow an appellate ruling.

What we cannot do — and where I part company with the majority — is to fail to enforce our original ruling.  Had the district court resentenced the defendant to the same 30‐year sentence, I have no doubt that the other panel members would have joined me in reversing and referring the case to another district judge for a second resentencing. It is not necessary to agree with an appellate ruling, but under any system of the rule of law it is necessary to follow it.

On resentencing in this case, the district court merely changed the subject.  After rejecting our decision, the court found another, previously unavailable reason to impose a reduced sentence. In the district court’s view, the defendant’s two years of model conduct within the prison system after his original sentencing justified a five‐year reduction of sentence.  This new factor led the court to impose a 25‐year sentence in place of the original 30 years.

The majority is prepared to accept the new sentence as reasonable in length and, in effect, call it a day.  I am not. The new sentence still fails to take into proper consideration the two § 3553(a) factors we singled out as the basis for reversal.  That the defendant has since demonstrated other reasons for a reduced sentence is an entirely separate development that fails to justify the district court’s refusal to follow the original mandate.  At this time, we still do not know how a district court which followed the mandate — by giving significant downward weight to the two § 3553(a) factors we identified — would sentence this defendant.  What all three members of this panel unanimously identified as significant substantive errors in the original sentencing decision remain uncorrected.  These errors continue to form the primary basis for the new sentence.