### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-30410

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee

v. RICHARD CHANDLER,
Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. JAMES E. GRAVES, JR., Circuit Judge: Richard Chandler p leaded guilty t o engaging i n a c hild e xploitation enterprise. At sentencing, t he district court varied upward by 1 27 months o ver the recommended Guidelines range t o impose 4 20 months o f i mprisonment. We find that the district court erred by increasing Chandler’s sentence b ased on the fact that he was a police officer. We remand for re-sentencing.

I. Factual and Procedural Background Chandler joined “Dre a m b o a r d,” a m embers-only online bulletin board which conditioned membership on posting a nd sharing child pornography. Members of the board would advertise child pornography available for distri b u tion by posting a description, “preview” i mages and information about U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D October 4, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk Case: 12-30410 Document: 00512397382 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2013No. 12-30410

how to download the material. In o rder t o obtain and retain membership on the board, a n individual was r equired to post advertisements for child p ornography

on a regular basis. There were five distinct levels of membership, with each level having a ccess to different s ections o f t h e bulletin board. The

a d ministrators of t he bulletin board were the highest level members and had

access to all of the advertised child pornography on the bul l e t i n b o a r d

. The second h ighest level was the “Super VIP.” mem b e rship level, which included members who were producing child pornography and posting it on the bulletin board. 1 The other three membershi p levels were “Super VIP,” “VIP,” and “Members.” The members at e a c h of these levels could s ee the posts on their membership level and on any level lower on the bulletin board. Chandler j oined Dreamboard in February 2010. H e was a police o fficer at the time. As a r e s u l t of his p ostings, he was r a ised to V IP status, the secondlowest membership level. He posted at least 117 posts, the m ajority o f which were children posing o r e ngaging i n sexual acts w ith adults. The pre-sentence report ( “PSR”) reflected that Chandler pu b l i s h ed the advertisements and offered to distribute the material on April 27, June 7, and June 10, 2010. Chandler was indicted in March 2011. A second superseding indictment charged him with: (1) engaging in a c hild exploitat i o n e n t e rprise, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(g); (2) conspiring to advertise the d i s t r i bution of child pornography, id. § 2251(d)(1), (e), a nd; (3) conspiring t o d i stribute child pornography, id. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (b)(1). C handler pleaded guilty to e ngaging in a c h ild exploitation enterprise, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The parties a g r e e that the district court correctly c a lculated Chandler’s Guidelines range as 240-293 months. In t he PSR, t he probation officer stated that he had not identified any factors warranting a departure o r variance from

1 The nam e of

the level “Sup er VIP. ” includ ed the p eriod in the nam e.

2 Case: 12-30410 Document: 00512397382 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2013No. 12-30410

the Guidelines range. C handler did not file objections to the PSR, b ut he filed

a Motion for Deviation from Sentencing Guidelines, argui n g t h a t a significant downward departure from the Guidelines was justified in his case because the sentencing scheme for possession of child pornography is unf a i r a n d the circumstances of h is o f f e n s e warranted leniency. The d i strict court rejected Chandler’s motion, noting that Chandler was not a “mere p ossessor” because he had repeatedly p osted child pornography. The district c o urt ultimately imposed a sentence of 420 months of imprisonment, an upward variance of 127 months f rom the top o f the G uidelines range. The district court found th a t t h e non-Guidelines sentence was j u s t ified by the nature and circumstances of the offense, particularly Chandler’s abuse of his public o ffice as a law enforcement officer, his use of ot h e r p e o p l e’s internet connections to attempt to h ide his participation in t he scheme, a nd the fact that he p osted child pornography 117 times, mostly with children 8 to 14 years of age. Chandler did not object to the sentence. Chandler filed a timely notice of appeal. II. Discussion On appeal, Chandler raises multiple challenges to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. He contends that the district court erroneously denied his motion for a d o w n ward deviation, improperly considered his status

a s a p olice officer, improperly considered his use of other people’s w irel e s s networks, imposed a sentence disproportionate to his co-defendants’ sentences, and imposed a sen t e n c e g r e ater than necessary to achieve the aims of sentencing. We f

ocus on his contention that the district court i mproperly relied on his status as a police officer. “Where, as here, the defendant fails t o o b j e c t to his sentence during sentencing, we review the District Court’s sentencing decision for plain error.” United States v. Ronquillo , 508 F.3d 744 , 7 4 8 ( 5th Cir. 2007). “We find plain

error only when (1) there was an error; (2) the error was clear and obvious; and

3 Case: 12-30410 Document: 00512397382 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/04/2013No. 12-30410

(3) the e rror affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” Id. ( q uoting United States v. Villegas , 404 F.3d 355, 358 (5th C ir. 2005)). If all t h r e e p l a i n error conditions are met, w e have “discretion to notice a forfeited e rror but only if (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quoting Villegas , 404 F.3d at 358-59). In reviewing a c hallenge to the substantive r easonable n e s s of a nonG uidelines sentence, “[a] non-Guideline sentence u nreasonably fails to re f l e c t the statutory sentencing factors where i t (1) d o e s n ot a ccount for a factor that should have r eceived signifi c a n t w e ight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or i mproper factor, or (3) r e presents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors

. ” U nited States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir. 2006). When reviewing a non-Guidelines sentence, we “may consider the e xtent of the deviation [in our review], but must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.” United States v. Broussard , 669 F.3d 537, 551 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). In varying upwards by more than ten years o ver the recommended Guidelines sentencing r ange, the district court relied extensively on t he fact that Chandler was a police o fficer at the time of the offense. At sentencing, t he court made the following remarks:

• [A]t the t ime o f th e c o m m i s sion of these offenses,

. . . t h e defendant was, in fact, a law e nforcement officer. And that’s
one of the aspects that gives me great p ause f or concern o n the appropriate sentence.

• This defendant is a p o l ice o fficer. Not only did he choose to violate that trust that he swore to uphold, he also, in going to Dreamboard—he stole Internet access from innocent people,
a n d he stole it from them so he could g o on the Dre a m b o a r d and not be caught.

4 Case: 12-30410 Document: 00512397382 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/04/2013No. 12-30410

• [P]eople w ho see this need to know—people w ho a re i n a position like his need to know t hat if they c hoose t o v iolate t h e law i n t his way, i f they choose to violate not just the trust of every person that they’ve sworn t o u p h old but also to put them at risk in going to a place where t hey’re e x p l oiting children—and what h e was doing was exploiting children

. . .[—] e very o t her person who is put in a position of t rust needs to know that if you do this, the consequences are grave.

• I a m v i s i b l y angry over your abuse o f the public’s trust, and your behavior a s a law e n forcement officer in c ommitting these crimes simply cannot be tolerated.

• You h ave abused your position of trust, you have abused your position of r esponsibility, and t hen you have violated the oath of your office as a law enforcement officer.

• As a law enforcement officer, you h ave placed y ourself in a different c ategory; and it’s a heightened one, b ecause y ou took an oath of office.

• Our own police officer in our own community doing this.

Some of t hese comments can be interpreted as comments on Chandler’s socioeconomic status, which is clearly an impermissible sentencing factor. It is well-established that “[a ] d e fe n d a n t’s so cio -e c o n o m ic sta tu s is n e v e r re le v a n t to

s e n te n c in g .” U

n ited S ta tes v
. B u rch , 8 7 3 F .2 d 7 6 5 , 7 6 9 (5 th C ir.1 9 8 9 ) ; s e e U n ited S ta tes v
. H

a rrin g t o n , 8 2 F .3 d 8 3 , 8 7

- 8 8 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) ( h o ld i n g th a t d e fe n d a n t’s sta tu s a s a p r o se cu to r w a s a n e le m e n t o f s o cio e co n o m ic sta tu s ); U n it e d S t a tes v
. S to u t , 3 2 F

. 3 d 9 0 1 , 9 0 3 -0 4 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (h o l d in g th a t t h e d e fe n d a n t’s p o sitio n a s a ju d g e w a s a n u n a c c e p ta b le re a so n fo r d e p a rtu re ). “U n d e r th e g u id e lin e s, se n te n cin g is to b e b a s e d u p o n t h e crim e c o m m itte d , n o t th e o ffe n d e r. W h ile c e rta in ch a ra cte r istics o f th e o ffe n d e r, s u c h a s p rio r crim in a l co n d u ct, a r e re l e v a n t to se n te n cin g u n d e r th e g u id e lin e s , it is b e ca u se

su ch ch a ra cte ristics a re d ire ctly re le v a n t to th e crim e co m m itte d .” B u rch , 8 7 3

5 Case: 12-30410 Document: 00512397382 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/04/2013No. 12-30410

F

. 2 d a t 7 6 8 -6 9 (cita tio n s o m itte d ); see H a rrin g t o n , 8 2 F .3 d a t 8 8

. In S to u t , t h e

se n te n cin g co u r t sa id o f a d e fe n d a n t fo rm e r ju d g e : Y o u sa t in ju d g m e n t o f y o u r fe llo w citize n s fo r tw e n ty y e a rs. A n d it

se e m s to m e , a s su ch , y o u sh o u ld b e h e ld to a h ig h e r sta n d a r d o f

a cco u n ta b ility , a n d y o u sh o u ld h a v e h a d th e le g a l e x p e r tise a s w e ll

a s t h e m o ra l se n se a s a re c ip ie n t o f t h e ta x p a y e rs’ fu n d s, re sp e c t,
a n d tru s t, to k n o w b e tte r. S t o u t , 3 2 F .3 d a t 9 0 3

. W e re je cte d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a rg u m e n t th a t t h e s e

co m m e n ts re la te d to th e “d e fe n d a n t ’s cu lp a b ility b a se d u p o n h is k n o w le d g e o f th e la w a n d h is a b i lity to p a y t h e t a x e s d u e ,” a n d co n c l u d e d th a t “[t]h e

co m m e n ts cle a rly re la te to S t o u t’s so cio e co n o m ic sta tu s.” S to u t , 3 2 F .3 d a t 9 0 4

n
. 2

. S o m e o f th e c o m m e n ts m a d e b y th e d i s trict co u r t h e re , su ch a s th o se sta tin g th a t b y b e in g a p o lice o ffice r C h a n d le r h a s p la ce d h im se lf in a d iffe re n t

ca te g o r y a n d sh o u ld b e h e ld to a h ig h e r s ta n d a rd , a r e sim ila r t o th o se in S to u t

a n d co u ld b e in te r p r e te d t o cro ss th e lin e in to i m p e rm issib le re lia n ce o n C h a n d le r’s so cio e co n o m ic sta tu s a s a p o lice o f fice r. To th e e x tent that the district c o urt’s comments r egarding Chandler’s

p o s i t i o n are findings that Chandler abused his position of trust or that t h e offense was more s erious because of Chandler’s p osition, t he d i strict court likewise erred. Though we are mindful that o ur review i n t h is case i s only for plain error, our circuit precedent is clear tha t a defendant’s status as a police officer, standing alone, is not a j ustifiable r e ason to increase a s entence. S ee U n ited S ta tes v
. W

a d e , 9 3 1 F

. 2 d 3 0 0 , 3 0 7 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) ; see a lso U n ited S ta tes

v
. R o a ch , 2 0 1 F

. A p p ’x 9 6 9 , 9 7 6 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (d istin g u ish i n g ca se s w h e re t h e

se n te n cin g co u rt u p w a r d l y d e p a rte d “m e r e ly b e ca u se o f [th e d e fe n d a n t’s]

so cio -e co n o m ic sta tu s o r p o s itio n in p u b lic o ffice ” fro m th e circu m sta n ce s w h e re th e d e fe n d a n t , a p ro se cu t o r, u se d h is p o sitio n in th e co m m issio n o f th e o ffe n se ). If a d e fe n d a n t p o lice o ffice r a b u se s h is p o s itio n b y u s i n g it t o fa cilita te t h e

o ffe n se , h is p o sitio n is a n a p p ro p ria te se n te n cin g fa cto r. W a d e , 9 3 1 F .2 d a t 3 0 7 ;

6 Case: 12-30410 Document: 00512397382 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/04/2013No. 12-30410

s e e a lso U

n ited S ta tes v
. E sq u iv a l , 4 0 7 F

. A p p ’x 7 8 1 , 7 8 4 (5 th C i r
. 2 0 1 1 ) (a ffirm in g w ith in

- G u id e lin e s se n t e n c e a b o v e th e sta tu to ry m in im u m w h e re bor de r p a tro l a g e n t, in ter a l i a , a b u se d p o sitio n o f tru st b y p ro v i d in g i n fo rm a tio n to d ru g tra ffick e rs). F u rth e r, w h e n la w e n f o rce m e n t e x p e rie n ce is o n e f a c to r

a m o n g m a n y re l ie d o n b y a d istrict co u rt i n ju d g in g th e s e rio u sn e ss o f a n

o ffe n se , it m a y b e a re le v a n t co n s i d e ra tio n
. S ee U n ited S ta tes v
. P r i d

g en , 8 9 8 F

. 2 d 1 0 0 3 , 1 0 0 4 -0 5 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) (a ffirm in g u p w a r d d e p a rtu re w h e re fo rm e r la w e n f o rce m e n t o ffice r a b d u cte d a b a n k e m p l o y e e d u r in g a ro b b e ry fo r a n

e x t e n d e d p e rio d ); b u t s ee W a d e , 9 3 1 F .2 d a t 3 0 7 (n o tin g th a t “ P rid g en d o e s n o t
g iv e a p p ro v a l fo r a n u p w a rd d e p a rtu re e a ch t im e a la w e n fo r ce m e n t o ffice r is

se n te n ce d ” ). Here, however, t h o u g h th e d i strict co u r t s ta ted m u ltip le tim e s th a t it w a s v a ry in g u p w a rd s b e ca u se C h a n d le r a b u se d h is p o sitio n , t h e d istrict co u rt d id n o t re ly o n a n y f

a cts sh o w in g th a t C h a n d le r a c t e d in h is c a p a city a s a p o lice

o ffice r in p o stin g ch ild p o rn o g ra p h y o n th e in te rn e t. T h e re is n o e v id e n ce in t h e

re co rd th a t h e u se d o r e x p lo i t e d h i s p o s itio n a s a p o l ice o f fice r, o r u se d a n y k n o w le d g e o r sk ills h e g a i n e d fro m t h a t p o sitio n , to co m m it th e o f f e n s e o r

a tte m p t to h id e it.
T h e d istrict co u r t’s e r ro r w a s co m p o u n d e d b y its m isch a ra cte riza tio n o f th e c o n d u ct in v o lv e d in C h a n d le r “ste a lin g ” o th e r p e o p le ’s “i d e n titie s” o r “in te rn e t a d d re sse s.” T h e o n ly d e scrip tio n o f th is c o n d u c t in th e re co rd is in a

se n te n cin g m e m o ra n d u m file d b y th e g o v e rn m e n t , w h i ch s ta te s th a t C h a n d le r

u s e d o th e r p e o p l e ’s u n se cu re d w ire le ss co n n e ctio n s
. T h o u g h t h e g o v e rn m e n t

re fe rs to th is a s “ste a lin g ,” it e s s e n t i a lly a m o u n ts to lo g g in g o n t o a n o p e n

w ire l e ss n e tw o rk

. W h ile w e a g re e w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t su ch a ctiv ity co u ld h a v e ca u se d in n o ce n t p e o p le to b e su b je c t to i n v e s t i g a tio n , i t cle a rly is n o t

e q u iv a l e n t t o id e n tity t h e ft o r a n y s o rt o f s k ille d h a ck in g a ctiv ity , th o u g h t h e

7 Case: 12-30410 Document: 00512397382 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/04/2013No. 12-30410

d istrict c o u r t d is c u s se d it a s if it re q u ire d h i g h l y te ch n ica l k n o w le d g e th a t C h a n d le r a c q u ire d a s a p o lice o ffice r. T h e co u rt sta te d : I a m e x tre m e ly co n ce rn e d o v e r a p o lice m a n w h o h a s th e ca p a b ility

a n d t h e k n o w le d g e a n d th e k n o w -h o w a n d d o e s ste a l I n te rn e t id e n titie s o f o th e r p e o p le in o rd e r t o h i d e w h o th e h e ll y o u a re
. Y o u a re a sn e a k y th ie f w ith e n o u g h k n o w le d g e to k n o w h o w to a cq u ire th o se In te rn e t a d d re sse s a n d In te rn e t i d e n titie s o f i n n o ce n t p e o p le

w h o d id n ’t k n o w th a t th e ir In te rn e t a d d re sse s a n d id e n titie s w e re b e in g p u rlo in e d b y y o u fo r th e p u rp o se s th a t y o u w e re p u ttin g t h e m to

. T h e r e is n o e v id e n ce in t h e r e c o rd su p p o rtin g t h e c o u rt’s c h a ra cte riza tio n s o f C h a n d le r’s c o n d u c t a s s te a lin g “In te rn e t id e n titie s,” o r co n n e ctin g C h a n d le r’s

u s e o f o th e r p e o p l e ’ s u n se cu re d w i re le ss c o n n e ctio n s w ith h is w o rk o r sk ills

a cq u ire d a s a p o lice o ffice r. In su m , C h a n d le r ’ s p o sitio n a s a p o lice o ffice r d o e s n o t ju s tify t h e in c re a se d se n te n ce h e re , w h e re th e re is n o e v id e n ce th a t h e u se d h is p o sitio n to fa cilita te th e o ffe n se
. A lth o u g h th e d istrict co u rt co n sid e re d o t h e r fa cto rs a t

se n te n cin g , t h e re co rd sh o w s th a t C h a n d le r’s p o sitio n a s a p o lice o ffice r w a s a
p rim a ry re a so n fo r th e u p w a rd s d e p a r t u re
. W e t h u s f in d th a t th e d istrict co u rt

e rre d b y p la cin g sig n ifica n t re lia n ce o n a n im p ro p e r f a cto r. See Smith , 440 F.3d
at 708. The additional requirements of the plain error stan d a r d a r e s a t i s f i e d here.

“ To affect the defendant’s substantial rights, the defendant must demonstrate that the e rror affected the outcome of the district court proceedings.” Broussard , 669 F.3d at 553. “In the context o f s e ntencing, we ask w hether the error increased the term of a sentence, such that there is a reasonable probability of

a lower sentence on remand.” United S t ates v. E scalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415,
424 (5th Cir. 2 012) (quoting United States v. Garcia-Quintanilla , 574 F.3d 295,
304 (5th Cir. 2 009)). G iv e n th e e x te n siv e re li a n c e b y t h e d istrict co u rt o n C h a n d le r’s p o sitio n a s a p o lice o ffice r a n d th e 1 2 7

- m o n th u p w a rd s d e p a rtu re ,
8 Case: 12-30410 Document: 00512397382 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/04/2013No. 12-30410

“w e ca n n o t co n fid e n tly sa y th a t th e d istrict co u rt w o u l d h a v e im p o se d th e sa m e

se n te n ce ” w ith o u t re lia n ce o n th a t fa cto r
. Escalante-Reyes ; 6 8 9 F .3d at 424; Garcia-Quintanilla , 5 7 4 F .3 d a t 3 0 4

. F u rth e r, b a se d o n th e “d e g re e o f th e e rro r

a n d th e p a rticu la r fa cts o f th e ca se , ” i n clu d in g th e le n g t h o f t h e u p w a r d s d e p a rtu re , w h ich is n o t o b v io u sly ju s t ifie d b y o th e r fa cts in t h e re co rd , w e fin d it a p p ro p ria te to e x e rcise o u r d iscre t i o n t o co rre ct th is e r ro r o n p l a in e rro r

re v ie w
. S ee U

n i ted S ta tes v

. J

o h n , 5 9 7 F

. 3 d 2 6 3 , 2 8 7 -8 9 (5 th C ir. 2 0 1 0 ). Because we f

ind that re-sentencing is required based on the district court’s reliance on Chandler’s status as police o fficer, we f ind it unnecessary to address Chandler ’s additional arguments. He may address these arguments as necessary to the district court on re-sentencing. III. Conclusion F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e V A C A TE Chandler’s sent e n c e a n d R E M A N D for re-sentencing. 2

2 Chand ler’ m otion to s eal this cas e is D E N IED

. H e has not d em ons trated that his intere s t s o u t w e igh the p ublic’s right to acces s jud icial record s
. See S. E. C

. v
. V a n Wa eyenberghe, 990 F. 2d 845, 848 ( 5th Cir. 1993)

. H is m otion to us e his initials ins tead of his

nam e in our op inion and on dock et s heets is lik ew is e D EN I E D

. See i d

. 9 Case: 12-30410 Document: 00512397382 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/04/2013