enhancements: (1) the two-level enhancement because the victims were in his custody, care or supervisory control (Counts I — III); (2) the two-level enhancement for committing a sex act by use of either force, threats or drugs, an intoxicant, or other similar substance without the persons’ knowledge (Counts I and II); (3) the two-level enhancement for distribution of pornography (Counts I-III); (4) the two-level enhancement for use of a computer (Counts IV-VI); and (5) the five-level enhancement for 600 or more images (Counts IV-VI). Arsenault does not argue that the sentencing judge failed to recognize the advisory nature of the Guidelines or his broad discretion to impose a non-Guidelines sentence. See Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Rather, Arsenault contends that these
holding that sentencing judges can vary from guidelines ranges based on policy considerations including disagreements with the guidelines recognizing district courts ability to vary from guidelines based on policy disagreement with sentencing range in cases involving child pornography holding a district court has authority to vary from the crack cocaine guidelines based on a policy disagreement with them italics omitted holding district courts are entitled to vary from the guidelines based on a policy disagreement with those guidelines holding a sentence is not based on the guidelines unless the plea agreement itself expressly uses a guidelines sentencing range to establish the term of imprisonment