Thanks for pointing that out. The journalist was wrong.

FAC#3….this was the quote from the end of the aforementioned article

“In addition to the nine-year prison term – which could be nearly halved with time served and good behavior credit – Peterson ordered Blomme to enroll in alcohol abuse and sex offender treatment, pay $200 in a special assessment and a $5,000 sex trafficking assessment.”

I was just re-iterating what the article said….

SeasonED Greetings To All!

And the article clearly states that the sentence “departed downward slightly” from guidelines while remaining well above mandatory minimum. Are people not reading this? How much more time do we want him to get?

TruthandScience, where do you get this information? He’s in the federal system, where you are required to serve 85% of your time. How can you say that he will only end up serving half the time? Even if he qualifies for RDAP, he doesn’t come close to half-off. It’s very damaging to make statements that lack any foundation. People will read this and think he is getting off easy by only doing half his sentence, when that’s not true.

And the Funny Thing Is That ‘He’ will only end up serving Half the Time Based on Good Behavior and Other Early-Release Enhancements; and Will Be Placed in Protected Custody, Receiving Daily Room Service

I, Met, ‘Others’, While on State Sponsored Vacation, and ‘THEY’ got Worse Sentences…I do not know anything about that ‘Stuff’, that, ‘They’ were convicted of, But All I ever gathered, was, that the Sentencing, on this ‘stuff’ is all over the map…there, never, seemed to be consistent Sentencing….It Seems like they ‘Throw the Legal Dart and See Where it Lands on the Dart Board’…Crime is Commerce!

SeasonEd Greetings!

I would argue your sentence was more unfair than his.

Completely unfair sentence! Let me tell you why. For many years, federal judges have been applying the 2 point enhancement for “use of a computer” found in the sentenceing guidelines. My judge applied this 2 points against me a sentencing, which helped trigger lifetime supervision! Yet, the federal judge in this case said the application of that enhancement is “double counting” — the very same argument I made but my judge rejected. So, there is no consistency in federal sentencing despite all the rhetoric about the need for consistent sentences to prevent miscarriage of justice.