UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JASON FLORENCE - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JASON FLORENCE

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jan 8, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Joshua M. Reho, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: Amanda E. Gregory, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Frank W. Heft, Jr., Aaron M. Dyke, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Danielle M. Yannelli, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee.

Judge(s): MOORE, CLAY, and WHITE, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. A jury convicted Jason Florence of one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and 2252A(b)(2). Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that Florence was previously convicted of possession and attempted possession of child pornography in 2015 and that Florence was on supervised release at the time of the conduct giving rise to the instant offense. At sentencing, the district court judge determined that Florence’s prior conviction rendered him subject to a statutory mandatory-minimum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(2). The court subsequently sentenced Florence to that minimum followed by a life term of supervised release. On appeal, Florence argues that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights under Alleyne v. United States and Erlinger v. United States were violated by the failure to charge his prior conviction in the indictment and submit the fact of his prior conviction to the jury. He further argues that the district court erred by allowing his probation officer to testify about whether the officer believed that Florence was truthful when Florence told him about the provenance of the cell phone on which the child pornography was found. Finally, Florence challenges the district court’s imposition of a life term of supervised release as both procedurally and substantively unreasonable. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Attachments: