LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT A SPECIFIC CASE. I LISTEN TO THE SEVEN CASES IN WHICH YOU HAD DISCRETION AND DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROSECUTOR'S RECOMMENDATION OR THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES. LET'S TALK ABOUT ONE OF THEM BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THEM AS A GROUP. LET'S TALK ABOUT UNITED STATES VERSUS HAWKINS FROM 2013, THE DEFENDANT WAS WESLEY HAWKINS, HE WAS 18 YEARS OLD AT THE TIME, HE UPLOADED FIVE VIDEO FILES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY FROM HIS COMPUTER TO YOUTUBE, THIS IS HOW THE POLICE GOT ONTO HIM. HE UPLOADED ANOTHER 36 DEPICTIONS OF CHILD PART IN LEWD PHOTOS TO HIS ICLOUD ACCOUNT. WHEN THE POLICE EXECUTED A SEARCH ON HIS APARTMENT ON THE PREMISES, THEY FOUND 17 VIDEOS ON HIS LAPTOP AND 16 IMAGES OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, ALL OF THEM VERY GRAPHIC, SOME OF THEM INVOLVING VERY YOUNG CHILDREN. 17 VIDEOS IN PARTICULAR, THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT SENTENCING MEMORANDUM. HERE ARE SOME OF THE VIDEOS THAT THE GOVERNMENT CHARGED AND THEY RECOVERED. THERE WAS A 24 MINUTE SIX SECOND VIDEO DEPICTING A 12-YEAR-OLD MALE COMMITTING A SEXUAL ACT. I'M NOT GONNA READ EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS. THERE IS A ONE MINUTE 57 SECOND MINUTE VIDEO DEPICTING AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD COMMITTING A SEXUAL ACT. THERE WAS AN 11 MINUTE 42ND VIDEO DEPICTING AN 11-YEAR-OLD COMMITTING A SEXUAL ACT AND BEING RAPED BY AN ADULT MALE. THERE WAS A 15 MINUTE 19 SECOND VIDEO DEPICTING TO 11-YEAR-OLDS COMMITTING SEXUAL ACTS. THERE WAS A SEVEN MINUTE 51 SECOND VIDEO DEPICTING A 12-YEAR-OLD COMMITTING A SEXUAL ACT. SO, AS THE GOVERNMENT SAID IN THIS CASE, AND I'M QUOTING FROM THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SENTENCING HEARING, 17 MINUTES IS A LOT. -- 17 VIDEOS IS A LOT. SOME OF THEM COULD BE AN OFFENSE AND THEY ARE VERY LENGTHY AND INCLUDE NUMEROUS IMAGES, NUMEROUS VIEWS, SOMETIMES COLLAGES, SOMETIMES MULTIPLE VICTIMS, YOU SEE THE ACT IN PROGRESS. THE GOVERNMENT GOES ON TO DESCRIBE SOME OF THESE AS MASOCHISTIC IMAGES. THIS IS A TOUGH CASE. THIS IS ONE OF THE TOUGH CASES YOU ARE REFERENCING EARLIER. THESE CASES ARE TERRIBLE, THIS IS ONE OF THEM. IT'S TERRIBLE STUFF. IT'S NOT A GOOD GUY DOING THE STUFF. GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION WAS 97 TO 127 MONTHS. IF I'M DOING MY MATH RIGHT, THAT'S UP TO 10 YEARS. IN THIS CASE, THE GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION WAS ESSENTIALLY WRITTEN BY CONGRESS BECAUSE, IN THE PROTECT ACT OF 2003, CONGRESS SPECIFIED WHAT THEY WANTED THE RANGE TO BE IN THESE KIND OF CASES, AND CONGRESS SPECIFIED THAT THEY WANTED THE MANDATORY MINIMUM. I KNOW YOU REMEMBER THE PROTECT ACT BECAUSE YOU TALKED ABOUT IT. YOU HAVE GIVEN LECTURES ON IT, AND IT WAS ACTIVE IN 2003. 84-0 WAS THE VOTE IN THE SENATE. THE REASON THE PROTECT ACT WAS PUT INTO PLACE, THE SENATE WAS CONCERNED OVER LENIENT SENTENCES TO JUDGES AND CHILD POOR AND CASES, WHICH IS WHAT YOU DESCRIBED. HE SAID THERE WAS AN INCREASING PERCEPTION ON CAPITOL HILL WITHIN DOJ THAT LIBERAL JUDGES WERE TO BLAME FOR THE DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON FEDERAL SENTENCES IN THE LEGISLATION WASN'T NECESSARY TO REIN THEM IN. THAT'S YOU IN 2011 DESCRIBING THIS LAW. CONGRESS HAS SET THE GUIDELINES HERE, 84-ZERO IN THE SENATE. THE CHAIRMAN VOTED FOR IT, AS DID A NUMBER OF OTHER MEMBERS FROM THE COMMITTEE. CONGRESS SETS THE RANGE. ESSENTIALLY IT'S 97 MONTHS UP TO 10 YEARS. THE PROSECUTOR IN THIS CASE, THIS WAS AN D.C., YOU ARE ON THE FEDERAL COURT. THE PROSECUTOR SAYS A LIBERAL ADMINISTRATION, AND THE STATE OF TEXAS, MY COLLEAGUE FROM TEXAS IS HERE, THE PROSECUTOR IN THIS CASE STILL ASKED FOR TWO FULL YEARS IN PRISON. YOU GAVE THE DEFENDANT THREE MONTHS. GUIDELINES CALLED FOR 10 YEARS, PROSECUTOR WANTED AT LEAST TWO, YOU GAVE THEM THREE MONTHS. WHEN YOU DID, YOU MADE A NUMBER OF ARGUMENTS, THE STATEMENTS IN THE RECORD AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THEM. I READ THEM ALL. THE FIRST STATEMENT YOU MADE WAS THE FEDERAL GUIDELINES, THE ONES THAT CONGRESS WROTE, "ARE IN MANY WAYS, OUTDATED." THAT'S YOUR QUOTE. YOU WENT ON TO SAY ABOUT WHY YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE OUT DOTED. "I DON'T FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE TO INCREASE THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF A NUMBER OF IMAGES OR PREPUBESCENT VICTIMS AS THE GUIDELINES REQUIRE BECAUSE THESE CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST IN MANY CASES, IF NOT, MOST, AND DON'T SIGNAL AN ESPECIALLY HEINOUS OR AGREE JUST CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSE." I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WRAPPING MY HEAD AROUND IT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EIGHT-YEAR-OLDS, NINE-YEAR-OLDS, 11-YEAR-OLDS AND 12-YEAR-OLDS. THE GOVERNMENT SAID HIS IMAGES ADDED UP TO OVER 700 IMAGES. GOBS OF VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THESE CHILDREN THAT YOU SAY DOES NOT SIGNAL A HEINOUS OR EGREGIOUS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OFFENSE. HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT. WHAT WORD WOULD YOU USE IF IT'S NOT HEINOUS OR AGREE JUST? HOW WOULD -- EGREGIOUS? HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE IT? JUDGE JACKSON: