USA v. Leafstedt

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
QUINCY LEAFSTEDT,
Defendant. 	Case No. 3:15-cr-00047-SLG
ORDER RE § 2255 MOTION
Before the Court at Docket 37 is Defendant Quincy Leafstedt’s Motion to Correct
Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Government filed a response at Docket 39.
BACKGROUND
On May 20, 2015, Quincy Leafstedt was indicted on charges related to child
pornography.1 Mr. Leafstedt ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child
pornography.2 Applying the United States Sentencing Commission’s Federal Sentencing
Guidelines, the Presentence Report calculated Mr. Leafstedt’s total offense level at 30.3
At sentencing, the Court adopted the guidelines calculation set out in the Presentence
1 Docket 2 (Indictment). Mr. Leafstedt was charged with three counts of distribution and receipt
of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2), (b)(1), and one count of possession
of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B), (b)(2).
22 Docket 22 (Plea Agreement) at 3. Mr. Leafstedt’s plea agreement waived the right to an appeal
of the conviction and the right to a collateral attack of the conviction or sentence, with the
exception of a collateral attack based on ineffective assistance of counsel or lack of voluntariness
of the guilty plea. 	Docket 22 at 16–17. 	Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of Mr.
Leafstedt’s claim, because it is clear that no sentencing error occurred.
3 Docket 27 (PSR) at 19, ¶ 46.
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 40 Filed 04/02/18 Page 1 of 3

Case No. 3:15-cv-00047-SLG, USA v. Leafstedt
Order Re § 2255 Motion
Page 2 of 3
Report.4 On February 28, 2017, the Court sentenced Mr. Leafstedt to a below guidelines
term of 75 months’ imprisonment.5
DISCUSSION
Mr. Leafstedt asserts that he should have received “a 2 level downward departure
based on United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2G2.2(b)(1) which provides for a . . . 2
level reduction in the Base Offense Level in light of there having [been] no ‘distribution’ of
unlawful images under the circumstances of his case.”6 Mr. Leafstedt “contends that such
a 2 level reduction in the Base Offense Level was not provided, and that he is so entitled
to receive it.”7 U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(1) provides:
If (A) subsection (a)(2) applies; (B) the defendant’s conduct was limited to
the receipt or solicitation of material involving the sexual exploitation of a
minor; and (C) the defendant did not intend to traffic in, or distribute, such
material, decrease [the offense level] by 2 levels.8
By its own language, § 2G2.2(b)(1) only allows for a 2 level decrease if § 2G2.2(a)(2)
applies. Section 2G2.2(a) provides:
(a) Base Offense Level:
(1) 18, if the defendant is convicted of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(b), §
2252(a)(4), § 2252A(a)(5), or § 2252A(a)(7).
(2) 22, otherwise.
4 See Docket 36 (Statement of Reasons) at 1. 	The guidelines range was determined to be
between 97 and 120 months. Docket 27 at 1, 27.
5 Docket 35 (J.) at 2.
6 Docket 37 at 1.
7 Docket 37 at 2.
8 This provision is contained in the 2016 Guidelines, which are applicable in this case. See 18
U.S.C. § 3553 (a)(4)(A)(ii) (instructing district courts to apply Guidelines that are “in effect on the
date the defendant is sentenced”).
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 40 Filed 04/02/18 Page 2 of 3

Case No. 3:15-cv-00047-SLG, USA v. Leafstedt
Order Re § 2255 Motion
Page 3 of 3
Thus, the 2 level reduction provided for by § 2G2.2(b)(1) only applies when a defendant’s
base offense level is 22. 	However, Mr. Leafstedt pleaded guilty to a violation of §
2252(a)(4), and therefore his base offense level was 18.9 Accordingly, he was not entitled
to the 2 level decrease provided in § 2G2.2(b)(1).
Furthermore, Mr. Leafstedt did not receive an increase in offense level for
distribution. As the PSR states under Specific Offense Characteristics:
If the defendant knowingly engaged in distribution, other than distribution
described in subdivisions (A) through (E), the offense level is increased by
two levels. U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(F). 	In this case, although Leafstedt was
using a peer-2-peer sharing system and the FBI SA was able to download
a series of videos from Leaftstedt’s [sic] computer, there has been no
evidence submitted to verify that Leafstedt “knowingly” distributed the
videos/images; therefore, there is no increase.10
The PSR lists the number “0” as the total level enhancement for distribution.11 Therefore,
Mr. Leafstedt’s offense level contained in the PSR and adopted by the Court at sentencing
was correct.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Correct at Docket 37 is DENIED.
DATED this 2nd day of April, 2018.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9 Docket 27 at 17, ¶ 34.
10 Docket 27 at 17, ¶ 36.
11 Docket 27 at 17, ¶ 36.
Case 3:15-cr-00047-SLG Document 40 Filed 04/02/18 Page 3 of 3