In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 10-2968
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
C ARL C. A DAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 1:09-cr-10094—Joe Billy McDade, Judge.
A RGUED JUNE 3, 2011—D ECIDED JULY 22, 2011
Before E VANS and W ILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
C ONLEY, District Judge.
E VANS, Circuit Judge. Carl Adams entered a guilty
plea to a charge of using the Internet to traffic in child
The Honorable William M. Conley, United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, sitting by designa-
tion.
2 No. 10-2968
pornography. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(1) and (b)(1). All
sides agreed that the correct guideline range for the
offense was 210 to 262 months. However, because the
statutory maximum penalty was 240 months, the range
was compressed to 210 to 240 months. The government
argued for a sentence of 210 months, the bottom of the
unchallenged range. Adams argued for a sentence of 60
months, the statutory minimum for the offense. The
judge imposed a term of 180 months. Adams appeals.
The nub of the appeal lies in Adams’ argument that his
sentence was inflicted with procedural error. He claims
that the judge believed (wrongly) that Adams, and
others like him, suffer “from an uncontrollable illness
when no such evidence was contained in the record
and uncontradicted studies establish that consumers
of child pornography have low rates of recidivism and
are not a high risk to commit contact offenses.” (Emphasis
added.)
The events that led to the indictment against Adams
kicked off in 2007 when an FBI task force agent in Florida
accessed the peer-to-peer program “LimeWire” through
the Internet as part of an undercover investigation
into child pornography.1 After the agent entered various
1
LimeWire, according to Wikipedia, is a free-access file-sharing
program that allows users to make files available to all other
LimeWire users by placing them in a shared folder. Any
LimeWire user may access that folder to download files, but
they may not add to another user’s shared folder. This
(continued...)
No. 10-2968 3
search terms associated with child pornography,
he was connected to Adams’ computer, from which
the agent downloaded nine files containing child por-
nography. The presentence report (PSR) described the
images as depicting:
a prepubescent girl exposing her genitalia
while wearing underwear; a nude prepubescent girl
spreading her legs and labia with semen and bruises
on the labia; a nude prepubescent girl lying on her
stomach, exposing her vagina and anus (2 copies);
a nude prepubescent girl bound to a bench lying
face down wearing a dog collar; two nude prepubes-
cent girls under the age of 13 holding an adult male
penis while one of the girls performs oral sex on said
penis; a nude prepubescent girl under the age of
13 performing oral sex on a male penis (2 copies); and
a prepubescent girl under the age of 12 sitting in
a vehicle nude from the waist down, exposing her
vagina and wearing a dog collar.
Acting on the Florida agent’s investigation, law enforce-
ment officers in Illinois executed a search warrant at
Adams’ home in Pontiac. They found two computers. The
first computer was operating on a desk, and the second
was stored in a box. Adams, who was home during the
search, told the officers that he was the sole user of both
computers. Adams said that he purchased the stored
computer in 2005 and used it until he purchased the
1
(...continued)
appears to mean that if a file is in a LimeWire user’s
shared folder, then that user put it there.
4 No. 10-2968
computer that was on the desk. Adams admitted that
he had installed and used LimeWire on the operating
computer to download music, videos, and adult pornog-
raphy but denied that he had ever searched for child
pornography.
Following the search, a computer expert examined the
seized computers and found that they contained 4,567
pornographic images, 639 of which were child pornog-
raphy.2 When examining the stored computer, the ex-
pert recovered nine Internet chats that took place in
September 2005 between Adams and other Internet users.
During the chats, Adams expressed his sexual interest
in children and exchanged and received more than 150
images containing child pornography. Here are a few
examples (we apologize for their graphic detail), all
from the PSR, of the chats:
In one chat, the other user asked Adams, “what ages
you trade?” Adams responded, “any . . . I love
younger girls . . . send I’ll match.” During the chat,
Adams exchanged and received 12 images of child
pornography.
In another chat, Adams asked the other user, “what
do u like[?]” The user replied, “young girls playing
with big hard cocks . . . u?” Adams responded, “me
too.” Later in the chat, the user asked Adams, “would
2
In his appellate brief and at oral argument, Adams and his
lawyer argued that this fact actually cuts in Adams’ favor
because it reveals that less than 15% of all of the pornog-
raphy he possessed was child-related. We fail to see anything
meritorious in these numbers.
No. 10-2968 5
you like to watch a 10 girl suck my cock[?]” Adams
replied, “yes.” During this chat, Adams exchanged
and received 109 images of child pornography.
And in another chat, Adams told the other user,
“I love oral . . . 12 and under . . . cumshots.” During
this chat, Adams exchanged and received 25 images
of child pornography.
Against this backdrop, Adams had several factors to
present to the judge in his favor at sentencing. He was 38
years old, single, and had no children. He was born
and raised in Pontiac and had no criminal record. He
served in the Air Force (1991-1995) and was honorably
discharged. He worked regularly on several blue-
collar jobs after leaving the Air Force, and he had a close-
knit family that supported him by sending letters to
the judge regarding the sentence that should be im-
posed. The only blemish on his record, and even he
acknowledged it, was excessive drinking over the course
of most of the last 15 years.
Adams also argued that he did not pose a particular
threat to commit sexual assaults against minors in the
future, presenting the judge with two research studies in
support of his position. The studies, Adams asserted,
concluded that “viewing child pornography itself is not
a risk factor for committing ‘hands-on’ or ‘contact’
offenses against minors, at least for those who have not
committed hands-on or contact offenses in the past.” At
sentencing, Adams’ lawyer also noted that there was
no evidence that Adams had even looked at child pornog-
raphy after his computers were seized in 2007.
6 No. 10-2968
The judge began his remarks by discussing the serious-
ness of the crime, which he believed was not truly ap-
preciated. The judge explained that, unlike in television
or in the movies, the conduct depicted in child pornogra-
phy “happened to 9, 10, 11, 12, 13-year-old children . . . .
And every time someone watches it, like Mr. Adams,
that’s creating a market, and that’s encouraging that
person and others like him to continue to make that
kind of filth. . . . to continue to exploit helpless children.”
The judge then acknowledged the mitigating factors
that we previously discussed and concluded that there
was no reason to doubt Adams’ sincerity when he said
that he would never commit the crime again. But the
judge said that he could not be certain:
[S]ometimes our needs and our desires are so strong
that they overcome our good judgment, our will. And
in my judgment, attraction to child pornography is
an illness because I don’t see how any reasonable
good person would find pleasure in that, certainly,
watching some helpless child and sometimes infants
be abused. So to get pleasure in that, suggests to me
it may be beyond one’s control.
Immediately thereafter, however, the judge stated that
maybe he “should back off on that” because there was
no evidence that Adams had not controlled his desires
since 2007. The judge determined that, if he were only
looking at Adams’ likelihood of recidivism, he “would
be much more responsive to Mr. Adams and his attor-
ney’s plea for the minimum of five years.”
No. 10-2968 7
However, the law also required the judge to examine
“what would deter other people who may have a pre-
disposition to child pornography.” On that issue, the
judge said that he sought to impose a sentence “that
would cause someone right now sitting at their com-
puter who has a desire to see child pornography to say,
wait a minute, if I’m caught, I’m going to get a stiff sen-
tence and it is not worth it. I better go get some treatment.”
The judge concluded his remarks by acknowledging
that Adams was not charged with acting on his desires.
Nevertheless, the judge said that what Adams had
done—specifying the particular images that he wanted,
downloading images of children being abused, and
actively trading images with others—indicated that
Adams had “a problem that is fueling the abuse of our
children.”
To repeat, Adams only takes issue with the judge’s
comments concerning whether Adams, and others like
him, suffer from an uncontrollable illness. Adams
claims that the judge committed procedural error by
relying on an unsupported conclusion that people who
view child pornography are unable to control their
actions. Whether a district judge followed proper proce-
dures in determining a sentence is a question of law that
we review de novo. United States v. Glosser, 623 F.3d 413,
418 (7th Cir. 2010).
The judge first mentioned the word “illness” in his
discussion of the seriousness of the crime and Adams’
likelihood of recidivism. There is nothing in the record
to suggest the judge was making a finding of mental
8 No. 10-2968
illness. Instead, he was struggling with the severity of
the crime and wondering why anyone would choose to
view images like those that Adams had viewed. The
judge surmised that such a desire was so unreasonable
that perhaps it was beyond a person’s control.
Moreover, immediately after these comments, the judge
said that he may need to “back off” on that belief because
Adams had apparently controlled his desires since 2007.
The judge then explicitly stated that if his only consider-
ation were Adams’ likelihood of recidivism, he would
be more responsive to Adams’ requested five-year sen-
tence. Thus, the judge’s initial discussion of an attraction
to child pornography as an “illness” did not dictate
the ultimate sentence.
Instead, the judge imposed a sentence above Adams’
request primarily because of the need to deter others
from engaging in similar crimes. The judge explained
that Adams’ sentence needed to “cause someone right
now sitting at their computer who has a desire to see
child pornography to say, wait a minute, if I’m caught,
I’m going to get a stiff sentence and it is not worth it.
I better go get some treatment.” These comments do not
amount to a finding that all child pornographers
suffer from an illness beyond their control3 (indeed, if the
3
The judge’s comments do not even suggest that he was
referring to an “illness” in a clinical sense. Even if he were, the
comments are not inconsistent with the two recent studies
Adams’ counsel brought to the attention of the court, since
(continued...)
No. 10-2968 9
illness were truly uncontrollable, attempts at deterrence
would be futile). Rather, the judge sought to encourage
people who have problematic desires similar to Adams’ to
remedy them—with help, if necessary. There is nothing
improper about sending this message.
True, the judge did not mention the studies that
Adams presented. But, as Adams concedes, a judge is
not required to address every argument raised by a
defendant at sentencing. United States v. Cunningham,
429 F.3d 673, 678 (7th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, here, the
judge specifically acknowledged that Adams was not
charged with a contact offense and, as we previously
discussed, determined that Adams was rather unlikely
to recidivate. Thus, there is no indication that Adams
was sentenced based on findings contradicted by the
studies.
In the end, the judge arrived at a below-guidelines
sentence by properly considering, among other things,
the seriousness of the offense and the need to provide
3
(...continued)
neither focus on whether an attraction to child pornography
can accurately be described as an “illness,” treatable or other-
wise, but rather on the apparent lack of correlation between
the viewing of child pornography and recidivism, par-
ticularly future “hands-on” sexual assault of children. Indeed,
though not formally recognized as an “addiction”—as is
compulsive gambling—the DSM-IV-TR defines among
“paraphilias” the “recurrent, intense sexually arousing
fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors generally involving . . .
children or other nonconsenting persons.”
10 No. 10-2968
deterrence. Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is A FFIRMED.
7-22-11