FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 62 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 8- cr-0 00 13 -WT H-GRJ -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MIC HAEL REPLOGL E, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Sep te m be r 9, 2 01 0) Befo re MAR CUS, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Mi ch ael Rep lo gl e ap pe al s h is 13 5- m on th sen te nc e im po se d a fte r pl ead in g gu il ty to re cei ptan d d is tri bu ti on of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. §22 52 (a)( 2) (B) and(b) (1 ). On ap pe al , Rep lo gl e arg ue s tha t h is sen te nc e, whi ch

was at the bo tt om

of t he gu id el in e ran ge , vi ol at es th e Eig hth Am en dm en t t o t he Uni te d S tate s C on st itut io n; th athe rece iv edin effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l at se nt en ci ng ; an d tha t the gu id el in es ap pl ic ab le to hi s o ffen se are undul y ha rs h a nd hi s s en te nc e is th eref

or e unr eas on ab le . After r ev ie w, we ho ldth atRep lo gl e’s se nt en ce d oe s n otpl ai nl y vi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t an d t ha t h is rem ai ni ng cl ai m s ar e b arre d b y

hi s s en te nc e ap pe al waiv er. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm .

I. Inlat e 2 00 2, Imm ig rat io ns an d C us to m s En fo rcem en t ag en ts in te rv ie wedan in di vi du al inCal ifo rn iainco nn ect io n wi th a ch il d p orno gr ap hy inv es ti ga ti on . Afte r adm it ti ng th athe di st rib ut edch il d p orno gr ap hy, he p ro vi de d a ge nt s wri tt en co ns en t t o s earc h h is em ai l ac co un t. Thi s s earc h s ho wedth athe ha d s en t a nu m be r im ag es of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy to v ari ou s Am eri ca On li ne subs cri be rs , on e of who m tu rn edou t t o b e Mi ch ael Rep lo gl e. Fo r rea so ns th atare unkno wn, ag en ts di d n otpu rs ue Rep lo gl e atth atti m e. Nev erthe le ss , so m e fi ve y ears lat er, Rep lo gl e was co nt act edat h is ho m e in Flo rid a by a Lake Co un ty Sheri ff’s Offi ce d et ect iv e. Dur in g thi s i nt erv ie w, Rep lo gl e adm it te d tha t h e h adpre vi ou sl y tra de d c hi ldpo rn og rap hy onth e In te rn et , bu t st at edth athe ha d n otdo ne so forso m e ti m e. Rep lo gl e g av e wri tt enco ns en t t o
2se arch hi s co m pu te r. The d et ect iv e fo un d n um ero us im ag es of young ch il dr en bo th clo th edan d n ak ed , anden ga ge d i n v ari ou s s ex act s an d p os es , whi ch Rep lo gl e sa idhe th ou gh t h adbe ende le te d. Ina se co ndin te rv ie w with d et ect iv es , Rep lo gl e ag ai n a dm it te d trad in g c hi ldpo rn og rap hy onth e In te rn etan d s av in g the im ag es to hi s co m

pu te r. Afte r be in g s ho wn s om e o f th es e im ag es , he a dm it te d tha t m an y of the ch il dr enwere u nd er t eny ears ol d a ndth atall were und er the ag e o f ei gh te en . Age nt s the n c on du ct eda fo ren si c ex am in at io n o f Rep lo gl e’s ha rddri ve , whi chrev eal ed22 8 i m ag es an d o ne m ov ie de pi ct in g c hi ldpo rn og rap hy. Fi ve of th e im ag es po rtr ay edsad is ti c o r m as oc hi st ic co nduc t an d m an y po rtr ay ed pr ep ub es cen t m in or s. Age nt s al so reco ve red11 1 e m ai ls da te d b etweenMarc h a nd Ju ne of 2 00 5 wi th att ach edim ag es of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, of whi chele ve n i nv ol ve d ch il dr enles s tha n twelv e y ears ol d a ndon e p ortray edsad is ti c o r m as oc hi st ic co nduc t. Rep lo gl e was in di ct edinth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a o n o ne co un t o f kn owi ng ly recei vi ng an d d is tri bu ti ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 2A( a)(2 )(B) an d (b )(1 ), an d o ne co un t o f kn owi ng ly pos se ss in g c hi ld po rn og rap hy tha t h adbe entra ns po rte d i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2A( a)(5 )(B) an d (b )(2 ). He pl ead edgu il ty to the fir stco un t p ur su an t to a writ te n p le a ag reem en t, an d t he go ve rn m en t ag reedto di sm is s the sec on d
3co un t. Un de r th e p le a ag reem en t, Re pl og le ex pr es sl y waiv edhi s ri gh t t o app eal or co ll at eral ly atta ck

hi s s en te nc e ex cep t i n fo urli m it edcir cu m st an ces : h is sen te nc e ex ceed s ei th er the gu id el in e ran ge de te rm in edby the di st ric t co urt o r th e st atut ory m ax im um , vi ol at es th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t, o r th e g ov ern m en t ex erci se s i ts rig ht to ap pe al . The pre se nt en ce re po rt ( “ PSR” ) pr ep aredby the U.S. Prob at io n Off ic e de te rm in edRep lo gl e’s ba se off en se lev el was 2 2 u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 (a)( 2) . The PSR the n re co m

m en de d ato ta l i nc reas e o f fo urte enlev el s b ecau se th e m at eri al ha d b eendi st rib ut ed , in vo lv edpre pube sc en t m in or s, an d p ortra y ed sa di st ic or m as oc hi st ic co nduc t; a co m pu te r ha d b eenus edto tra ns m itan d v ie w th e m at eri al ov er the Int ern et ; an d a t l eas t 3 00 bu t l es s tha n 6 00 im ag es were in vo lv ed . Afte r a thr ee-l ev el reduc ti on foracce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity ,

1 Rep lo gl e’s to ta l o ffen se lev el was 3 3. With a Cri m in al His to ry Cat eg ory of I , Rep lo gl e’s gu id el in e ran ge was 1 35 to 16 8 m on th s. Rep lo gl e d idno t o bjec t t o t he gu id el in e cal cu la ti on s, b utarg ue d tha t h e sh ou ldbe sen te nc edto th e m an da to ry m in im um of f iv e y ears ba se d o n t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. In p art ic ul ar, h e arg ue d t ha t the gu id el in es ov er- Replog le was f

ound to possess a total of 303 imag es. This included the 228 imag es 1 rec overe d from Replog le’s computer and one movie, which is deeme d to equal 75 imag es under the guidelines. 4rep res en te d the ser io us ne ss of h is off en se be cau se on ly a sm al l fr act io n o f th e im ag es in vo lv edsad is ti c o r m as oc hi st ic co nduc t, an d b ecau se he ex ceed edth e 30 0- im ag e th res ho ldby j us t thr ee i m ag es , andth enon ly becau se th e g ui de li ne s arb itrari ly ass ig n a75 -image equi va le nc y to a si ng le vi de o. He al so po in te d t o ot he r fac to rs th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d c on si de r, in cl ud in g h is co op erat io n wi th au th or it ie s, p rio r mil it ary se rv ic e, an d l ackof acri m in al reco rd ; tha t h e h ad al read y lo sthi s jo b a ndhi s h om e as a res ul t o f hi s co nduc t; an d t ha t h e h adno t se ntor r ecei ve d a ny im ag es inth e two y ears be fo re h is arre st . Ult im at el y , th e di st ric t co urt ad op te d the PSR as th e fi nd in gs of t he co urt an d s en te nc edRep lo gl e atth e b ot to m

of h is gu id el in e ran ge . Rep lo gl e n ow ap pe al s h is sen te nc e. 2 II. Rep lo gl e co nt en ds th athi s s en te nc e v io la te s the Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Thi s arg um en t was no t ra is edinth e d is tri ctco urt, the refo re we re vi ew Rep lo gl e’s se nt en ce o nl y

forpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Raad , 40 6 F .3d13 22 , 13 23 (11 th Ci r. 20 05 ). “ Pl ai n e rro r oc cu rs wher e (1 ) th ere i s an erro r; ( 2) th atis pl ai n o r ob vi ou s; (3) affe ct in g the de fen da nt ’s subs tant ia l ri gh ts inth atitwas p reju di ci al
Although Re plogle did not init ially appea l his sentence, he filed a motion under 28 2 U.S.C. § 2255 assertingthat his attorney provided inef

fec tive assistance for a

number of reasons, including that he did not timely file an a ppeal a s Replogle instructed. The district court grante d Replog le’s motion to vacate and re imposed the 135-month sentenc e, thus ena bling Replog le to file a timely

notice of a

ppeal. 5an d n otha rm le ss ; an d (4 ) th atser io us ly affect s the fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c

rep ut at io n o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id . (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . The Eig ht h Am en dm en t p ro vi de s tha t “ [e]xce ss iv e b ai l s ha ll no t b e requi red , no r ex ces si ve fin es im po se d, n orcru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en ts in fli ct ed .” U.S. Con st . Am en d. VIII . “ The am en dm en t ‘con ta in s a n arro w pr op orti on al ity

pri nc ip le th atap pl ie s t o n on cap it al sen te nc es .’ ” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 4 51 F.3d12 39 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ti ng Ewin g v . Cal ifo rn ia , 53 8 U.S. 11 , 20 , 12 3 S . Ct. 1 17 9, 1 18 5 (2 00 3) ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) .

“ ‘In ge ne ral , a se nt en ce wi th in th e li m it s i m po se d b y st atut e is ne ithe r ex ces si ve no r cru el an d u nu su al un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t.’” Id. at12 43 (qu ot in g Un it ed St at es v. Mo ria rty, 429 F.3d10 12 , 10 24 (11 thCir . 20 05 )). “ Thi s i s s o b ecau se we acco rdsubs tant ia l d efer en ce t o C on gr es s, as itpo ss es se s b ro adau th or ity to de te rm in e th e types an d l im it s o f pu ni sh m en ts forcri m es .” Raad , 40 6 F .3dat 13 23 (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . For t ha t re as on , th e Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e itcle ar th at , “ ‘[o]uts id e th e co nt ex t o f cap it al pu ni sh m en t, s uc ces sf ul ch al le ng es to th e pr op orti on al ity

of p art ic ul ar s en te nc es [wil l b e] exce ed in gl y rare .’ ” So le m

v. Helm , 46 3 U.S. 2 77 , 28 9, 1 03 S. Ct. 3 00 1, 3 00 9 (1 98 3) (qu ot in g R umm el v. Est el le , 44 5 U.S. 2 63 , 27 2, 1 00 S. Ct. 1 13 3, 1 13 8 (1 98 0) (al te rat io ns an d e m ph as is in ori gi na l)) . 6Inev al ua ti ng anEig ht h Am en dm en t ch al le ng e to a no nc ap it al sen te nc e, “ a

rev ie win g c ou rt m

us t m ak e a thr es ho ldde te rm in at io n t ha t the sen te nc e im po se d i s gr os sl y di sp ro po rti on at e to th e o ffen se co m m it te d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Reyno ld s, 21 5 F .3d12 10 , 12 14 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). The d efen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f m ak in g th is sh owi ng . Jo hn so n, 4 51 F.3dat 1 24 3. “ If the sen te nc e is gro ss ly di sp ro po rti on at e, ‘the co urt m us t the n c on si de r th e se nt en ces im po se d o n o th ers co nv ic te d i n the same j ur is di ct io n a ndth e se nt en ces im po se d fo r co m

m is si on of th e sa m e cri m e in othe r juri sd ic ti on s.’” Id. (quo ti ng Raad , 40 6 F .3dat 1 32 4) . Rep lo gl e h as no t s ho wn tha t h is sen te nc e p la in ly vio la te s the Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Rep lo gl e’s 13 5- m on th sen te nc e, atth e b ot to m of h is gu id el in e ran ge , is far b el ow the 20 -y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um forth e o ffen se . W e h av e freque nt ly recog ni zedth ata se nt en ce wi th in th e st atut ory li m it s g en eral ly doe s n ot vi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t, an d t ha t a d efen da ntwho se sen te nc e fal ls be lo w th e st atut ory

m ax im um can no t m ak e th e th res ho ldsh owi ng of d is pr op orti on al ity . See, e.g ., id .; Ra ad , 40 6 F .3dat 1 32 4 & n.4 . In v ie w of thi s p rece de ntan d h av in g co ns id eredth e rec or d i n thi s ca se , we can no t s ay th atRep lo gl e’s se nt en ce was

“ gr os sl y di sp ro po rti on at e to th e o ffen se co m m it te d,” m

uc h l es s tha t the di st ric t co urt co m

m it te d p la in erro r by im

po si ng th e se nt en ce i t d id . Rep lo gl e’s Eig ht h 3 Replog le points to a number of f actor s in this case that might have supporte d a lesser 3 sentenc e, includinghis coopera tion with investi g ators (f

or which he alre ady

rec eived c redit in the 7Am en dm en t ch al le ng e th eref or e fai ls . 4 III. Rep lo gl e arg ue s tha t h e rec ei ve d i ne ffec ti ve ass is tanc e o f co un se l at se nt en ci ng . He als o c on te nd s tha t the sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s ap pl ic ab le to hi s of fen se are u ndul y

ha rs h, an d thu s, h is withi n- gu id el in es sen te nc e is subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le . As st at edab ov e, ho wev er, Rep lo gl e’s pl ea ag reem en t co nt ai ne d a se nt en ce ap pe al waiv er. The refo re we m us t fi rs t d et erm in e whe th er thi s wai ve r fo recl os es a ch al le ng e to hi s s en te nc e o n t he se gro un ds . The v al id ity

of asen te nc e ap pe al waiv er i s a que st io n o f law we rev ie w de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Bus he rt, 9 97 F.2d13 43 , 13 52 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). “ A se nt en ce ap pe al waiv er m us t b e m ad e kno win gl y

an d v ol un taril y .” Uni te d S ta te s v. J oh ns on , 54 1 F .3d10 64 , 10 66 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). W e wil l en fo rce asen te nc e ap pe al waiv er “ if the go ve rn m en t s ho ws ei th er tha t: (1) th e d is tri ctco urt sp eci fic al ly que st io ne d the de fen da ntab ou t the waiv er; or ( 2) th e rec or d m ak es cl ear t ha t the de fen da ntothe rwis e und ers to odth e fu ll si gn ifi can ce o f th e wai ve r.” form of a reduc tion for ac cepta

nce of responsibility), that he a

ppare ntly cea sed downloading

or tradingchild pornography , his mil itary service and stable home life, and that he only marg inally exceede d the 300-imag e thre shold, which led to an a dditional increa se in his offense level. The se fac tors are properly

addre ssed to the sentenc ing c ourt’s discre tion in craftinga re asonable sentenc e. The y

do not, however , rende r his sentenc e a pla in violation of the Eighth Ame ndment. Be cause we c onclude that Replog le has not made a thre shold showing of 4 disproportionality , we ne ed not consider the sentenc es imposed on others. Raa d, 406 F.3d at 1324 n.4. 8Id .; s ee al so Bu sh ert , 99 7 F .2dat 1 35 1.

The lan gu ag e o f th e se nt en ce ap pe al waiv er i n R ep lo gl e’s pl ea ag reem en t i s cl ear a ndun am

bi gu ou s. Durin g t he pl ea co ll oquy, the di st ric t co urt s pe ci fic al ly qu es ti on edRep lo gl e ab ou t thi s p ro vi si on . The d is tri ctco urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t, wi th th e ex cep ti on of t he fou r ci rcu m st an ces setforth inth e p le a ag reem en t, Re pl og le wou ldfor ev er wai ve any rig htto ap pe al or c ol late ral ly atta ckhi s s en te nc e. Rep lo gl e co nf

irmed hi s u nd ers tand in g o f th e se nt en ce ap pe al waiv er an d s ta te d th athe ha d s pe ci fic al ly dis cu ss editwith h is att orne y . On thi s re co rd , we con cl ud e th atRep lo gl e’s se nt en ce ap pe al waiv er i s v al idan d e nf or ceab le . See Bu sh ert , 99 7 F.2 d a t 1 35 1. Inhi s p le a ag reem en t, Re pl og le waiv edhi s ri gh t t o app eal or c ol la te ral ly at ta ck hi s s en te nc e ex cep t wh ere h is sen te nc e (1 ) ex ceed s the gu id el in es ran ge cal cu la te d b y

th e d is tri ctco urt, (2 ) ex ceed s the st atut ory m ax im um , (3) vi ol at es th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t, o r (4 ) whe re the go ve rn m en t ex erci se s i ts rig htto ap pe al . Rep lo gl e’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m an d h is ch al le ng e to th e subs tant iv e reas on ab le ne ss of h is sen te nc e d o n otfal l wi th in an y of t he se ex cep ti on s. Rep lo gl e is th eref

or e p recl ud edfro m

ch al le ng in g h is sen te nc e o n the se gro un ds . AFFIRMED.

9