Whether a sentence imposed pursuant to the child pornography Sentencing Guidelines can be deemed reasonable when the Sentencing Commission has deemed the Guidelines flawed and Courts have questioned the basis on which non-contact offenders are put in the same categories as producers and manufacturers

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether a sentence imposed pursuant to the child pornography Sentencing Guidelines, on a man whose crime was viewing pornography alone in his home, can be deemed reasonable because it is a “Guideline sentence,” when the Sentencing Commission has deemed child pornography Guidelines flawed and Courts have questioned the basis on which non-contact offenders are put in the same categories as producers and manufacturers, and where the Second Circuit allowed the use of Guideline enhancements which, the Second Circuit wrote, serve “no end of the criminal justice system.” Il. Whether the sentencing judge should have disqualified himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455 because, in a similar “run of the mill’ child pornography-viewing case, the judge, rejecting expert suggestions that the defendant was educable, expressed the belief that pornography-viewing behavior is genetically-based and cannot be controlled by the offender, and whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to discover the published case in which the judge had stated his belief about the nature of child and moving for recusal. ll