United States v. Liwanag

372 F. Supp. 3d 68
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. New York
DecidedMarch 20, 2019
Docket17-CR-00677
StatusPublished

This text of 372 F. Supp. 3d 68 (United States v. Liwanag) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Liwanag, 372 F. Supp. 3d 68 (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

Jack B. Weinstein, Senior United States District Judge

Table of Contents

I. Introduction 70

II. Instant Offense 70

III. Guilty Plea 71

IV. Sentencing Hearing 71

V. Guidelines Range and Statutory Minimum 71

VI. Law 71

VII. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Considerations 72

A. Defendant's Background 72

B. Seriousness of Conduct 72

VIII. Sentence 73

IX. Conclusion 74 *70I. Introduction

Keith Liwanag ("Liwanag" or "the defendant") pled guilty to one count of sexual exploitation of a child. He coerced economically vulnerable women into engaging in sexually explicit conduct with young children in exchange for payments, and he recorded and distributed the content.

This serious offense is likely to cause continuing psychological and emotional damage to the women and children involved. The defendant will require considerable mental health treatment and rehabilitation so he can be a productive member of society. A lengthy prison sentence in which he faces immense challenges and dangerous conditions will do more harm than good. Nonetheless, because the offense to which the defendant pled guilty carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years, the court sentences him to that lengthy term of incarceration-15 years.

II. Instant Offense

The defendant, together with others, "employed, used, persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced a minor ... to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing ... visual depictions of [the] conduct." Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR") ¶ 1; see also 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) ; id. § 2251(e). Liwanag knew or had reason to know that such visual depictions would be transported and transmitted through the United States and internationally. PSR ¶ 1.

On July 12, 2016, Facebook filed a "CyberTip" to "CyberTipline" to report a Facebook account that was being used to persuade women to engage in sexual acts with children in exchange for money. Id. ¶ 5. CyberTipline is a national clearinghouse created by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to obtain leads of sexual exploitation crimes involving children. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. The reported account belonged to the defendant. Id. ¶ 5. After the issuance of a search warrant, an investigating agent from the Department of Homeland Security found multiple communications sent through this account requesting child pornography. Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. Many of the communications referred to the Philippines or included messages written in Filipino. Id. ¶ 6.

These communications demonstrate that Liwanag asked several female Facebook users to engage in lewd sexual conduct with young children in exchange for money. Id. ¶¶ 7-12. Records from Western Union show that the defendant made various payments to accounts in the Philippines, totaling $ 1,200, in exchange for the requested acts. Id. ¶ 11. During these interactions, he specifically directed the conduct of women as they digitally and orally manipulated young boys' genitals while he watched. Id. ¶¶ 7-10. One child was reported to be six years old. Id. ¶ 7. The defendant posed as a "medical researcher" to another female Facebook user, saying he was doing an "experiment" for school about how "loving filipino [sic] mothers are with children." Id. ¶ 9. He asked for and received pictures of this user kissing the genitals of a prepubescent boy. Id. ¶ 10.

The defendant's electronic devices were seized. Id. ¶ 13. Investigators found ten recorded Facebook video conferences and at least 41 Skype calls between himself and women who were engaged in sexual acts with children. Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Booker
543 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Gall v. United States
552 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 2007)
United States v. Gouse
468 F. App'x 75 (Second Circuit, 2012)
United States v. Eddie Eugene Norris
159 F.3d 926 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Cavera
550 F.3d 180 (Second Circuit, 2008)
In re Sentencing
219 F.R.D. 262 (E.D. New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
372 F. Supp. 3d 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-liwanag-nyed-2019.