Alan Strieper: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Strieper was caught in a [[sting operation]] in which a federal agent invited him to help him kidnap, rape and possibly murder a child, whom they would randomly select. The agent asked him to meet him at the airport with the necessary supplies, such as duct tape. When Strieper followed the instructions, [[Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] agents arrested him. | Strieper was caught in a [[sting operation]] in which a federal agent invited him to help him kidnap, rape and possibly murder a child, whom they would randomly select. The agent asked him to meet him at the airport with the necessary supplies, such as duct tape. When Strieper followed the instructions, [[Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] agents arrested him. | ||
The court applied two five-level enhancements to calculate Strieper's offense level of 42. It applied the first enhancement for engaging in a pattern of sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor and the second for distribution of child pornography for receipt of a thing of value. On appeal, Strieper argued that both enhancements were improper, since he had not victimized any actual child, and since he had shared pornography by Limewire without necessarily expecting to receive anything in return. The appeals court ruled that an attempt to victimize a child, even if no particular child had been specified in the plan, counted as actual victimization. Because Strieper had not objected to the child pornography enhancement at the time of sentencing, the "{{w|plain error}}" standard of review applied, and the District Court was deemed to have not committed plain error, since it had followed a precedent set by the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit]]. Thus, Strieper sentence was upheld in its entirety. | The court applied two five-level enhancements to calculate Strieper's offense level of 42. It applied the first enhancement for engaging in a pattern of sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor and the second for distribution of child pornography for receipt of a thing of value. On appeal, Strieper argued that both enhancements were improper, since he had not victimized any actual child, and since he had shared pornography by Limewire without necessarily expecting to receive anything in return. The appeals court ruled that an attempt to victimize a child, even if no particular child had been specified in the plan, counted as actual victimization. Because Strieper had not objected to the child pornography enhancement at the time of sentencing, the "{{w|plain error}}" standard of review applied, and the District Court was deemed to have not committed plain error, since it had followed a precedent set by the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit]]. Thus, Strieper's sentence was upheld in its entirety. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} |
Revision as of 13:28, 12 March 2015
Alan Paul Strieper is a former sailor who pleaded guilty to enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity and child pornography charges. He was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment and lifetime federal supervised release. He is currently incarcerated at FCC Petersburg Medium was a projected release data of 3 August 2040, assuming full good conduct time credit.[1] His case was published by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[2]
Strieper was caught in a sting operation in which a federal agent invited him to help him kidnap, rape and possibly murder a child, whom they would randomly select. The agent asked him to meet him at the airport with the necessary supplies, such as duct tape. When Strieper followed the instructions, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested him.
The court applied two five-level enhancements to calculate Strieper's offense level of 42. It applied the first enhancement for engaging in a pattern of sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor and the second for distribution of child pornography for receipt of a thing of value. On appeal, Strieper argued that both enhancements were improper, since he had not victimized any actual child, and since he had shared pornography by Limewire without necessarily expecting to receive anything in return. The appeals court ruled that an attempt to victimize a child, even if no particular child had been specified in the plan, counted as actual victimization. Because Strieper had not objected to the child pornography enhancement at the time of sentencing, the "plain error" standard of review applied, and the District Court was deemed to have not committed plain error, since it had followed a precedent set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Thus, Strieper's sentence was upheld in its entirety.
References
- ↑ Inmate Locator, #75102-083. Federal Bureau of Prisons.
- ↑ U.S. v. Strieper (4th Cir. 23 January 2012). Text