In a legal showdown that could profoundly impact sentencing practices, the Eastern District of Virginia recently delivered a bombshell opinion in United States v. Roberts. This case doesn’t just highlight an obscure debate about interpretation—it sets the stage for revisiting decades-old sentencing guidelines that may lack a solid foundation in modern law or common sense. At its core, this case grapples with one critical question: When it comes to digital material, how do we measure its quantity for sentencing purposes, especially in cases involving child sexual abuse material (CSAM)?

Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys alike are now asking: Does the math behind sentencing guidelines add up, and if it doesn’t, what is the path forward? Buckle up, because this isn’t just a legal story—it’s a cautionary tale of how outdated laws, arbitrary calculations, and judicial pushback collide. Let’s break it down.

Rewriting the Playbook: How Judge Payne Challenged the Sentencing Status Quo

The case revolves around Mr. Roberts, who pleaded guilty under federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2252A) for possession of CSAM. This isn’t a particularly unusual charge, but the complexity arises from how sentencing enhancements were applied under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG). Specifically, guidelines state that every video of CSAM, no matter its length or content, is equivalent to 75 images for sentencing calculations.

This 75-to-1 “multiplier” is not explicitly written into the sentencing guidelines’ text but rather appears in the accompanying commentary, designed to guide interpretation. For Roberts, the math turned a collection of 13 still images and 127 videos into a whopping tally of 9,525 images—exceeding the 600-image threshold that automatically triggers a five-level enhancement, potentially doubling his sentence. Sound like an exaggeration? Judge Henry E. Hudson Payne thought so too.

In a June 2025 opinion, Judge Payne scrutinized this widely accepted calculation and concluded that it fails the legal and logical tests set by modern legal standards. His conclusions could ripple far beyond this case.

Questioning the Math: Landmark Legal Precedents Come into Play

To understand why Judge Payne rejected the 75-to-1 multiplier, you need to familiarize yourself with a key Supreme Court ruling: Kisor v. Wilkie (2019). This case reinvigorated scrutiny over “Auer deference,” a principle where courts defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of their own regulations. Kisor created a three-step test, requiring courts to determine:

  1. Whether the regulation in question is genuinely ambiguous,
  2. Whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, and
  3. Whether it reflects the agency’s fair, considered, and authoritative judgment.

Applying this test, Judge Payne eviscerated the multiplier. He argued that the term “image” is not ambiguous—its ordinary meaning refers to a single picture, not a video. Even if ambiguity existed, the 75-to-1 ratio wasn’t reasonable. It lacked empirical evidence and had been plucked “from thin air” back in 1991 when digital media was dramatically less prevalent than it is today. Finally, the commentary itself failed to reflect any credible or authoritative analysis by the Sentencing Commission.

A Split in the Courts: Why This Case Matters

Judge Payne’s opinion signals a possible sea change in the federal court system. He isn’t alone: the Third and Sixth Circuits have also rejected the multiplier as legally indefensible. However, the Eleventh Circuit continues to uphold it, creating a split among circuit courts—the very situation that often attracts the attention of the Supreme Court.

This divergence matters because consistency in sentencing is a hallmark of fairness in the justice system. If a person faces vastly different outcomes depending on the circuit in which they are prosecuted, fundamental questions of equity arise. By drawing attention to these inconsistencies, United States v. Roberts positions itself as a potential vehicle for broader judicial reform, perhaps even escalating to the nation’s highest court.

The Timeline: From Arrest to Sentencing Drama

Let’s take a moment to walk through the key milestones of this case:

  1. November 2024: Homeland Security agents traced a Kik account linked to Roberts and discovered a relatively small trove of CSAM: 140 files, including 13 still images and 127 videos. Notably, this was far from the kind of massive collection often associated with harsher sentences.

  2. March 2025: A pre-sentencing report applied the controversial 75-to-1 multiplier, yielding over 9,500 images and triggering a hefty sentencing enhancement.

  3. June 2025: After objections from the defense, Judge Payne rejected the multiplier, recalculating the applicable sentencing range from 97–120 months all the way down to 70–87 months.

  4. Final Sentence: Judge Payne then issued a more lenient sentence of 40 months in prison, well below even the revised range, along with five years of supervised release.

What started as routine sentencing turned into a legal clash that unraveled long-standing assumptions about federal guidelines.

Why This Case Has Broader Implications

The bigger issue here isn’t just about sentencing math—it’s about the very fabric of how the justice system calculates punishment.

  1. Technology’s Role: In the 1990s, when these guidelines were crafted, digital images and videos were far rarer. Today, a single smartphone can record hours of high-definition video at 60 frames per second. Treating a 30-second video as equivalent to 75 images feels, in Judge Payne’s words, fundamentally arbitrary.

  2. Judicial Pushback: For decades, courts rubber-stamped the Sentencing Commission’s decisions without question. Judge Payne’s opinion reflects a growing willingness among judges to challenge guidelines that feel outdated, excessive, or unsupported.

  3. Defending Against Harsh Sentences: For defendants, the implication is clear: strong legal advocacy matters. Cases like Kisor and Roberts provide a roadmap for defense attorneys to challenge sentencing guidelines built on shaky interpretive ground.

What’s Next? Policy Ripples and Practical Advice

Does this case open the door for others to revisit harsh sentences? Possibly. Legal experts suggest that others sentenced under the 75-to-1 multiplier may want to explore resentencing options in circuits where this precedent applies. However, much depends on how higher courts and the Sentencing Commission respond. If the Fourth Circuit or the Supreme Court affirms Judge Payne’s decision, it could embolden further challenges across the country.

For those currently facing federal charges or sentencing, here are three key takeaways:

  1. Ask Your Lawyer to Challenge Broad Interpretations: Cases like Roberts and Kisor illustrate how effective it can be to scrutinize agency interpretations that inflate sentencing. Ensure your attorney is familiar with these legal tools.

  2. Advocate for Individualized Sentencing: Avoid “one-size-fits-all” assumptions. A strong defense can highlight why enhancements may not apply to your case.

  3. Stay Informed About Circuit Decisions: Sentencing guidelines can vary based on where you are. Know whether you’re in a circuit that has rejected the multiplier or still adheres to it.

Conclusion: A Step Toward Fairer Sentencing

The United States v. Roberts case underscores the cracks in the federal sentencing system. As technology evolves and judicial scrutiny increases, it’s clear that some practices—like the 75-to-1 video-to-image multiplier—may belong to the past rather than the future. While this decision is a victory for fairness and logic, its ultimate impact depends on whether other courts follow Judge Payne’s lead.

For now, Roberts’ case reminds us of a simple truth: Just as laws shape society, society must shape its laws. In the digital age, fairness demands no less.