contends that an offender who has had no actual contact with the child, did not make or finance the making of the images, and was not the first to upload it to the internet, has created no additional harm to the child by then copying, downloading, or sharing the images with others irrespective of the fact that it results in new offenders viewing the images. Defendant argued at sentencing that his conduct was less harmful because he had no contact with the children and merely downloaded and shared the images with others. The district judge rejected this argument and expressed agreement instead with the Third Circuit’s discussion — including that the downloading of child pornography re-victimizes the children in the images—in United States v. Goff, 501 F.3d 250, 258-60 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). The court in Goff found that the nature and
holding variance between enhancement allegation and proof renders evidence legally insufficient only if variance is material recognizing that aberrant criminal behavior may justify downward variance holding that the district courts imposition of a 15month sentence when the guidelines range was 37 to 46 months imprisonment a 60 downward variance was unreasonable holding that substantial downward variance was substantively unreasonable holding that an upward variance or departure in the sentence imposed on a career offender based on  3553a factors including criminal history was substantively and procedurally reasonable