Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-06-30590/USCOURTS-ca9-06-30590-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James N. Cannel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

No. 06-30590 Plaintiff-Appellee,

D.C. No.

v.  CR-05-02059-EFS

JAMES N. CANNEL,

OPINION Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

December 4, 2007—Seattle, Washington

Filed March 3, 2008

Before: M. Margaret McKeown and Richard R. Clifton,

Circuit Judges, and William W Schwarzer,* District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Schwarzer;

Concurrence by Judge Clifton

*The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District

Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 

1909

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 1 of 14
COUNSEL

Tracy A. Staab, Research and Writing Attorney, Federal

Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Spokane, Washington, for the defendant-appellant. 

K. Jill Bolton, Assistant United States Attorney, United States

Attorney’s Office, Spokane, Washington, for the plaintiffappellee. 

OPINION

SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge: 

James N. Cannel appeals the sentence of 72 months’

imprisonment for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). On this appeal, Cannel

1912 UNITED STATES v. CANNEL

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 2 of 14
contends for the first time that the government breached the

plea agreement. We review for plain error and find that the

government did not breach the plea agreement with Cannel.

We therefore affirm the sentence. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In January 2005, Cannel began chatting online under the

username “surching” with a Seattle Police Department detective, who was posing as a twelve-year-old boy under the username “tim_12_seattle.” In February 2005, Cannel asked

“tim_12_seattle” for a picture of himself, sent pictures of his

genitalia, and suggested that they meet for a sexual encounter.

Detectives traced the IP address used by “surching” to Cannel. When interviewed by law enforcement, Cannel admitted

that he used the screen name “surching,” sent pictures of his

genitalia, and possessed 100 to 500 images of child pornography. Cannel also admitted that he traded images of child pornography with others in on-line chat rooms. 

On April 12, 2006, Cannel pleaded guilty to possession of

child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)

(5)(B), pursuant to a written plea agreement. The agreement

stipulated substantially as follows: 

• a base offense level of 18; 

• a two-level increase for material involving a prepubescent minor or a minor who had not attained

the age of 12 years; 

• a four-level increase for portrayal of sadistic or

masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence;

• a two-level increase for an offense involving the

use of a computer; 

UNITED STATES v. CANNEL 1913

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 3 of 14
• a two-level increase for an offense involving at

least ten images, but fewer than 150 images;

• a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 3E1.1(a) and (b) and upon motion of the government, if Cannel pleaded guilty and accepted

personal responsibility for the criminal conduct,

and provided accurate information during the

sentencing process;

• a final adjusted offense level of 25; and 

• the government would not seek an upward departure from the applicable sentencing guideline

range, but could seek any sentence within the

applicable sentencing guideline range. 

The plea agreement also stipulated that neither party was precluded from “presenting and arguing, for sentencing purposes,

additional facts which are relevant to the guideline computation or sentencing,” unless otherwise prohibited by the agreement. 

On June 1, 2006, the United States Probation Office submitted its Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”), which

recommended an adjusted offense level of 33, minus three

levels for acceptance of responsibility. This resulted in a final

adjusted offense level of 30 and an advisory sentencing range

of 97 to 121 months. The PSR calculation included two

enhancements that were not in the plea agreement: (1) a twolevel enhancement for distribution, based on a shared folder

on Cannel’s computer containing a video clip and a still

image available for downloading on a peer-to-peer file sharing program; and (2) a five-level enhancement for an offense

involving 600 or more images, based on the nineteen video

clips found on Cannel’s computer. Pursuant to Application

Note 4(B)(ii) to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, each video clip was

1914 UNITED STATES v. CANNEL

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 4 of 14
counted as the equivalent of seventy-five images, for a total

of 1,425 images. 

On July 26, 2006, Cannel filed a Sentencing Memorandum.

In it, he objected to the PSR’s proposed two-level enhancement for distribution on the ground that it was not part of the

plea agreement. He also argued that there was “insufficient

evidence to support this enhancement” because placing the

images in a shared folder was not the same as posting material

on a website for public viewing, as suggested in the PSR.

With respect to the five-level enhancement for the 1,425

images, Cannel argued that it should not apply because the

parties had agreed that the number of images for sentencing

purposes would be more than ten but less than 150. In support

of his request for a sentence of 12 months and one day, Cannel submitted an evaluation by a clinical psychologist. This

evaluation recounted Cannel’s assertion that his discussions

with “tim_12_seattle” were merely part of a fantasy with no

relationship to reality. 

On August 2, 2006, the government filed a Notice of

Review of Presentence Investigation Report and Sentencing

Memorandum. The government stood by its recommendations

in the plea agreement and did not adopt the PSR’s additional

enhancements, but opposed a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility “[i]n light of the representations made

by [Cannel] in his sentencing memorandum, including his

contention that he did not distribute child pornography and his

contention that his on-line chats were merely fantasy.” The

government pointed out that Cannel had admitted that he distributed child pornography through Internet chat rooms, and

concluded that Cannel had “failed to provide complete and

accurate information during the sentencing process, as

required for the Government’s recommendation for reduction

in offense level for acceptance of responsibility.” 

With respect to Cannel’s objection to the five-level

enhancement for the number of images, the government

UNITED STATES v. CANNEL 1915

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 5 of 14
acknowledged that in agreeing on a two-level enhancement,

the parties erroneously disregarded Application Note 4(B)(ii).

The government urged the court to overrule Cannel’s objection because contrary to Cannel’s argument that most of the

video clips were very short in duration, the video clips averaged five minutes in length. The government, however, also

stated that it was standing by its plea agreement recommendations in order to avoid a breach, and that the court should simply consider the number of images as a factor supporting a

sentence “at the high end of the guideline range.” The government recommended an offense level of 28, which excluded

the three-level acceptance of responsibility adjustment

reflected in the offense level of 25 originally called for by the

plea agreement. The government therefore requested a sentence of 97 months, at the top of the 78 to 97-month sentencing range called for by an offense level of 28. 

At the sentencing hearing on October 18, 2006, Cannel

objected to the PSR’s enhancement for distribution, and to the

PSR’s five-level enhancement for an offense involving 600 or

more images. The court overruled the objections, noting that

Cannel had admitted to police officers that he had distributed

child pornography in Internet chat rooms, and finding that the

PSR had correctly calculated the number of images involved.

Cannel did not argue that the government had breached the

plea agreement. The government recommended a sentencing

range of 78 to 97 months, which reflected the enhancements

specified in the plea agreement but did not include the downward adjustment of three levels for acceptance of responsibility. The government referred the court to its sentencing

memorandum, in which it recommended a sentence of 97

months. 

The district court accepted the PSR’s offense level of 33

and it subtracted two levels for acceptance of responsibility

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). Consistent with its position

that Cannel had not been truthful, the government declined to

move for the additional one-level acceptance of responsibility

1916 UNITED STATES v. CANNEL

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 6 of 14
adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). This resulted in an

advisory guideline range of 108 to 135 months. Noting that

the sentence would amount to nine years in prison, the court

observed this to be “far more than necessary to adequately

punish [Cannel]” and imposed a sentence of 72 months, with

three years of supervised release and special conditions. This

timely appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of Review

We would normally review Cannel’s claim that the government breached his plea agreement de novo. See United States

v. Mondragon, 228 F.3d 978, 980 (9th Cir. 2000) (applying

de novo review when facts were not in dispute and “the only

issue [was] whether the prosecutor’s statements as a matter of

law constituted a [violation of the plea agreement]). Cannel,

however, did not preserve this issue for appeal, having failed

to claim a breach of the plea agreement by the government at

the sentencing hearing. United States v. Flores-Payon, 942

F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Issues not presented to the

trial court cannot generally be raised for the first time on

appeal.”). His objection to the PSR in his Sentencing Memorandum and at the sentencing hearing on the ground that it

conflicted with the plea agreement is not sufficient to preserve

the issue of a breach of the plea agreement. United States v.

Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2000) (pointing

out discrepancy between PSR and plea agreement does not

constitute a claim that the government breached the plea

agreement). Cannel’s objections at the sentencing hearing

were directed at persuading the court that the enhancements

for distribution and for a larger number of images were inconsistent with the plea agreement, not that the government had

breached the plea agreement. 

Although Cannel forfeited his claim that the plea agreement

was breached, we may review that claim for plain error.

UNITED STATES v. CANNEL 1917

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 7 of 14
Flores-Payon, 942 F.2d at 558; Maldonado, 215 F.3d at 1051.

Relief for plain error is available if there has been (1) error;

(2) that was plain; (3) that affected substantial rights; and (4)

that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Recio, 371

F.3d 1093, 1100 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v.

Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993)). 

II. Breach of the Plea Agreement 

Plea agreements are contracts and are enforced as such. The

defendant relinquishes his constitutional right to a trial by

entering into a plea agreement, and “[t]he integrity of our

judicial system requires that the government strictly comply

with its obligations under a plea agreement.” United States v.

Allen, 434 F.3d 1166, 1174 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Mondragon, 228 F.3d at 981). 

Cannel contends that the government breached his plea

agreement by: (1) recommending against a three-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility and volunteering additional evidence in support of an enhancement for distribution;

and (2) supporting a five-level enhancement for the number

of images. 

A. Acceptance of Responsibility 

[1] The plea agreement provided that the government

would move for a three-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility if Cannel “demonstrates a recognition

and an affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility . . .

[and] provides complete and accurate information during the

sentencing process.” Although Cannel had previously admitted that he had distributed pornographic images, he opposed

the PSR’s recommended distribution enhancement by arguing

that there was insufficient evidence to support the enhancement. Cannel stated in his sentencing memorandum that the

materials in the shared folder relied upon by the PSR had not

1918 UNITED STATES v. CANNEL

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 8 of 14
been available for downloading by the public and had in fact

not been downloaded. 

[2] Under the plea agreement, each party was entitled to

present and argue additional facts relevant to sentencing. The

government did not advocate an enhancement for distribution

or present evidence in order to support such an enhancement.

However, in response to what it viewed as Cannel’s effective

repudiation of his prior admissions, the government did highlight evidence already presented in the PSR of repeated

instances in which Cannel had admitted to distributing pornographic images over the Internet. This evidence was relevant

to sentencing: its purpose was to show why the government

believed that Cannel had not been accurate in his representations to the court and had not demonstrated affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility and thus did not meet the plea

agreement’s conditions for an acceptance of responsibility

adjustment. Cf. United States v. Johnson, 187 F.3d 1129,

1135 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding that the government made a recommendation concerning the sentence in violation of the plea

agreement when it introduced a victim impact statement that

had “nothing to do with the crime” to which the defendant

pleaded guilty). Because the government was obligated to

move for the reduction only if Cannel met the specified conditions, and because there is no suggestion that it acted based

on unconstitutional or arbitrary motives,1 the government did

not breach the plea agreement by not recommending an

adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, or by explaining

to the court why it would not make such a recommendation.

1

See, e.g., United States v. Espinoza-Cano, 456 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th

Cir. 2006) (holding that the government’s decision not to move for an

acceptance of responsibility adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) cannot

be based on “an unconstitutional motive or for reasons not rationally

related to a legitimate government interest”). 

UNITED STATES v. CANNEL 1919

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 9 of 14
B. Enhancement for Number of Images

[3] Cannel contends that the government also breached the

plea agreement by volunteering that the number of images

had been incorrectly calculated, and by advocating the fivelevel enhancement. Cannel inaccurately characterizes the government’s actions. In its sentencing memorandum the government acknowledged that, as suggested by the PSR’s

sentencing calculation, the parties had erroneously disregarded Application Note 4(B)(ii), which would have brought

the total number of images to over 600 and resulted in an

enhancement of five levels, rather than two levels. The government agreed that the PSR accurately assessed the number

of images but added that “in order to avoid a breach of the

plea agreement, the Government stands by its original plea

agreement recommendation” with respect to the enhancement

for the number of images involved in the offense. Although

the government urged the court to overrule Cannel’s objection

to the five-level enhancement because the objection was not

supported by the facts or the relevant application note, the

government only invoked the facts behind the five-level

enhancement in support of its argument that the court should

give a sentence at the high end of the sentencing range recommended by the government. The government’s sentencing

memorandum presented a final adjusted offense level of 28.

That number reflected all of the upward adjustments in the

plea agreement (including a two-level, rather than five-level,

enhancement for the number of images), but excluded the

downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility (for the

reasons discussed above).

[4] Thus the government’s final sentencing recommendation was consistent with the plea agreement, which permitted

the government to withhold a recommendation for an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility if Cannel did not comply with the specified conditions. The plea agreement,

moreover, permitted the government to seek any sentence

within the applicable guideline range; the government recom1920 UNITED STATES v. CANNEL

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 10 of 14
mended a sentence of 97 months, which was at the top of the

78 to 97-month sentencing range dictated by the offense level

of 28.

AFFIRMED. 

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment: 

I agree with my colleagues that the sentence should be

affirmed, but I reach that result via a different route. Specifically, I disagree with the conclusion that the government did

not breach the plea agreement in this case. I conclude that the

government did breach the agreement. Because I do not

believe that the sentence imposed by the district court was

affected in any way by that breach, however, I agree that the

sentence should be affirmed. 

I. Breach of the Plea Agreement 

The government promised in the plea agreement to move

for a three-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility. The

recommendation contained in the Presentencing Report

(“PSR”) prepared by the probation officer included that threelevel reduction for acceptance of responsibility. When it came

time for sentencing, though, the government opposed that

reduction and declined to move for the third of the three

levels of reduction, which it had sole power to do under

U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b). It justified its action by pointing to Cannel’s submission to the court regarding sentencing, “including

his contention that he did not distribute child pornography and

his contention that his on-line chats were merely fantasy.”

The government viewed those positions as contradicting

acceptance of responsibility for his crime. 

I do not believe that the government’s position was correct,

so I conclude that its failure to honor the plea agreement conUNITED STATES v. CANNEL 1921

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 11 of 14
stituted a breach of that agreement. Cannel did not disclaim

responsibility for his crime. Notably, nowhere in his sentencing memorandum did Cannel deny that he had distributed

child pornography. He simply denied that he distributed pornography in one manner stated in the PSR. 

The PSR recommended a two-level distribution enhancement on the ground that Cannel had a video and a graphic

image “available for downloading” in the shared folder of a

peer-to-peer file sharing program. Cannel argued in his sentencing memorandum that “there is insufficient evidence to

support this enhancement.” He argued that the fact that the

files were present in his shared folder did not mean that the

files were “post[ed] . . . for public viewing” as required by

U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F), cmt. n.1. He also argued that there

was no evidence that anybody actually downloaded the files

from his folder. Cannel did not deny that he had distributed

child pornography in other ways, nor did he deny that he

“traded pictures with others in chat rooms,” as he had previously admitted. He simply advanced the legal argument that

the basis articulated in the PSR was insufficient to support the

recommended enhancement for distribution. That was a legal

argument, made not by Cannel himself but by his defense

attorney, and that attorney made this distinction clear to the

trial court during the sentencing hearing. The legal arguments

contained in the sentencing memorandum do not amount to a

repudiation of Cannel’s admission that, as a factual matter, he

had distributed child pornography, nor do they contradict his

acceptance of responsibility for that offense. 

Cannel did not deny responsibility for his crime by asserting that his discussions with “tim_12_seattle” were mere fantasy, or by submitting an evaluation by a clinical psychologist

recounting that assertion. Cannel did not deny that he had

possessed or distributed child pornography. The argument

behind his assertion is simply that his conduct would not have

led to an in-person encounter or caused any physical harm,

1922 UNITED STATES v. CANNEL

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 12 of 14
factors which could have affected the district court’s determination of an appropriate sentence. 

I believe it is significant that despite the government’s

arguments, the district court did not conclude that Cannel in

fact failed to accept responsibility. Instead, it overruled the

government’s objection to the reduction. That contradicts the

current claim by the government — and the conclusion of the

majority opinion — that the positions taken by Cannel justified the government’s failure to honor the plea agreement.

Because Cannel did not deny responsibility or provide incomplete or inaccurate information in violation of the plea agreement, he did not relieve the government of its obligation to

seek a three-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility.

Accordingly, I conclude that the government breached the

plea agreement by failing to do so. 

II. Prejudice 

Because Cannel did not preserve his breach argument by

objecting to the district court, I agree with the majority opinion that we review for plain error, under which it is Cannel’s

burden to establish prejudice. See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2000) (“A plain error

is a highly prejudicial error affecting substantial rights.”)

(citations omitted); United States v. Campbell, 42 F.3d 1199,

1204 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Plain error is error that is clear under

the law and that affects substantial rights. [The defendant] has

the burden to establish that the error was prejudicial.”);

accord United States v. Puckett, 505 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 2007)

(affirming on plain error review where government admitted

that it had breached plea agreement but defendant could not

show prejudice). 

Cannel cannot show prejudice because the government’s

breach of the plea agreement did not increase the sentence

imposed. The district court overruled the government’s objection to the two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibilUNITED STATES v. CANNEL 1923

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 13 of 14
ity. Without a motion by the government, the court did not

have the power to reduce by a third level based on acceptance

of responsibility, so it can be assumed that if the government

had not breached, Cannel’s base offense level would have

been 30 rather than 31. Based on that calculation and his

criminal history category, Cannel’s advisory guidelines range

would have been 97 to 121 months rather than 108 to 135

months. 

In the end, though, the district court imposed a sentence of

72 months, far below the low end of either of these guidelines

ranges. This strongly supports the inference that the district

court did not key off the bottom of the advisory range but

rather calculated the appropriate sentence independently, as it

is empowered to do. To the extent that acceptance of responsibility played a role in the court’s determination, the court

was obviously aware of its disagreement with the government’s position that Cannel had repudiated his acceptance, so

it must be assumed that the court took that into account. 

Accordingly, Cannel has not shown that the government’s

breach prejudiced him, and his sentence should be affirmed.

1924 UNITED STATES v. CANNEL

Case: 06-30590 03/03/2008 ID: 6461208 DktEntry: 31-1 Page: 14 of 14