Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03852/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03852-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark David McGinley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3852

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Mark David McGinley

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul

____________

 Submitted: October 17, 2016

Filed: February 27, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

Mark David McGinley pleaded guilty to one count of production of child

pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). The government dismissed

23 other counts charging child pornography production, distribution, and possession. 

Appellate Case: 15-3852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Entry ID: 4505485 
At sentencing, the district court overruled McGinley’s objection and imposed a five- 1

level adjustment, finding that he is a Repeat and Dangerous Sex Offender Against

Minors. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b). This resulted in a total offense level of 43, the

highest possible, and an advisory guidelines range of 360 months in prison, the

statutory maximum sentence. The court imposed a 360-month sentence. McGinley

appeals the sentence, arguing the district court procedurally erred by failing to make

an explicit finding that he presents a continuing danger to the public, as the

background commentary to § 4B1.5 requires, and by failing to consider and explain

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. We affirm. 

After law enforcement downloaded over 4,000 child pornography imagesfrom

an IP address registered to McGinley, officers seized computer equipment during a

warrant search of his residence. Review of that equipment yielded over 100,000

images of child pornography, over 4,000 pictures McGinley took of minor girlsin his

neighborhood from 2010 to 2013, and a folder entitled “Homemade” organized into

16 subfolders depicting McGinley sexually abusing a prepubescent girl. McGinley

admitted the “Homemade” images depicted abuse of his then-eight-year-old niece. 

When interviewed, the niece told law enforcement that the incidents occurred on

multiple occasions when her brother was not present, McGinley bribed her, and he

asked her to keep their contacts secret. McGinley then admitted abusing his niece on

three occasions and videotaping the abuse over a one-and-a-half year period from

2003 to 2005. He said he digitized and saved the images for over 10 years so he

would not need to “find” other victims. 

A. The § 4B1.5(b) adjustment applies if “the defendant’s instant offense of

conviction is a covered sex crime . . . and the defendant engaged in a pattern of

activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.” McGinley’s offense was a covered sex

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States DistrictJudge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Entry ID: 4505485 
crime, and his activity involved prohibited sexual conduct. See § 4B1.5 cmt. n.2 &

n.4(A). He “engaged in a pattern of activity” because he admitted that he engaged in

prohibited sexual conduct with a minor on at least two occasions. Id. at cmt. n.4(B). 

Thus, the record makes clear that McGinley committed a covered sex crime and

engaged in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct. 

On appeal, McGinley argues the district court erred because there is no express

finding, as the background commentary to § 4B1.5 requires, that he “present[s] a

continuing danger to the public.” This contention is without merit. The findings

required in applying § 4B1.5(b) are found in the provision’s application notes, not in

the background commentary. See United States v. Wardlow, 830 F.3d 817, 823-24

(8thCir. 2016). Moreover, the sentencing transcriptmakes clear that the district court

did focus on whether McGinley presents a continuing danger to the public:

And all we have to do is look at what you did physically to a very

young, very vulnerable human being here to realize that you are a person

who is dangerous, and that fear is an appropriate response to you.

* * * * *

So that’s the sentence. . . . I realize the danger . . . photographing

your neighbor children and neighbors, I mean that’s pretty creepy

behavior, especially coming fromsomebodywho is a pedophile and who

has [distributed] all the child pornography.

The district court committed no clear error or procedural error in imposing the

§ 4B1.5(b) adjustment.

B. McGinley next argues the district court procedurally erred by failing to

consider and explain the § 3553(a) factors, focusing only on public safety, while

ignoring a psychosexual evaluation showing that he is treatable and poses a low risk

of recidivism. McGinley failed to object to the district court’s explanation at

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3852 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Entry ID: 4505485 
sentencing, so this argument was not preserved. “We will not sustain a procedural

challenge to the district court’s discussion of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing

factors by a defendant who did not object to the adequacy of the court’s explanation

at sentencing.” United States v. Maxwell, 778 F.3d 719, 734 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,

135 S. Ct. 2390, 135 S. Ct. 2827, 136 S. Ct. 176, and 136 S. Ct. 319 (2015). 

Moreover, the district court’s explanation at sentencing was more than

adequate “to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 50 (2007). The court reviewed the PSR, heard both parties argue the § 3553(a)

factors, asked detailed questions, noted that the plea agreement allowed McGinley to

avoid punishment for 23 other child pornography charges, compared McGinley’s

offense conduct with that of other child pornographers (“it couldn’t be much worse

than an eight-year old victimover multiple times”), and made the sentence concurrent

with any state incarceration resulting fromMcGinley’s abuse of his niece. See United

States v. Roberts, 747 F.3d 990, 992 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Battiest, 553

F.3d 1132, 1136 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1265 (2009). McGinley’s “withinguidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable on appeal.” United States v.

Borromeo, 657 F.3d 754, 756 (8th Cir. 2011). 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-3852 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Entry ID: 4505485