N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R IC HARD ALB ER T WU ER FEL, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50402

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00262-GHK-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ge orge H. King, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 5, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON a

nd WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s, a n d B URR E LL, Se nior Distric t Judge
. ** Appe lla nt R ic ha rd W ue rfe l a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss e vide nc e se iz e d during a wa rran te d se a

rc h of his hom e and his se nte nc e of 72 m onths im

prisonm e nt followe d by

a life t im e te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se . W e 

# FIL ED
FEB 20 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ga rland E. B urre ll, Jr., Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3742(a ) and 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, va c ate Wu e rfe l’ s se nte nc e , a nd re m and. Suppr e ssion of E vide nc e W e re je c t W ue rfe l ’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the July 30, 2009 se arc h wa

rrant wa s not supporte d by proba

b l e c a use sinc e the a ffidav it submitte d in support of the

se arc h
warran t “ c re ate d a

‘ fa ir proba

bility ’ tha t [c hild pornogra

phy ] would be found in [Wu e rfe l’ s hom e ] .” Unite d State s v . K rupa , 658 F.3d 1174, 1178 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Illinois v . Gate

s , 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)) (sta ting theproba

b le c a use sta nda rd for issua

nc e of a se arc h wa

rrant). The a ffidavit e vinc e d tha t in M ay of 2008, a n individual using W

u e rfe l’ s na

m e pa id a m onthly subsc ription to a c c e ss c hild pornogra

phy on m ultipleoc c a sions from

an inte rne t

c onne c tion a s soc iate d with W ue rfe l’ s the n re s ide nc e . Furthe r, a fte r Wue rfe l m ove d, he sought a c c e ss to
a dditiona l c hild pornogra phy , a s shown by

his e m a il to a

se c ond c hild pornogra

phy
we bsite in Oc tobe r 2008 a n d his 51 a

tte m pts to download c hild pornogra phy vide os from

the Fe de ra l B ure a

u of Inve stiga

tion W e b Lure we bsite in the spring of 2009. The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing W ue rfe l’ s suppre ssion
m otion. Wue rfe l a lso a

rgue s the se iz e d e vide nc e should be suppre sse d be c a u se the gove rnm e nt viola

te d c e rta in te rm s of the July 30, 2009 se arc h wa

rrant. Howe ve r, 2Wue rfe l did not raise this ground in his suppre ssion m otion, a nd he ha s give n no re a s on for his fa ilure to do so. Ac c ordingly , the issue is wa ive d
. Unite d State s v . Murillo , 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th C ir. 2002).

O bstr uc tion of Justic e E nhanc e m e nt Wue rfe l c onte nds the distric t c ourt e rre d in a pply ing a two-le ve l se nte nc ing
e nha nc e m e nt for obstruc tion of justic e unde r U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 be c a use he la c ke d the s pe c ific inte nt to obstruc t justic e .

“ Se nte nc ing Guide line s § 3C 1.1 c onta ins a c l e ar m e ns re a re quire m e nt tha t lim its its sc ope to thosewho ‘ willfully ’ obstruc t or a tte m pt to obstruc t the
a dm inistra

tion of justic e .” Unite d State s v . Lofton , 905 F.2d 1315, 1316 (9th C ir. 1990). “ As a

pplie d by se c tion 3C 1.1, the te rm

‘ willfully ’ re quire s tha

t the de fe nda n t ‘ c onsc iously

a c t with the purpose of obstruc ting justic e .’ ” Id. at 1316- 17 (quoting Unite d State

s v . Stroud

, 893 F.2d 504, 507 (2d C ir. 1990)). He re , we c annot “

pre sum e the distric t

c ourt e nha

nc e d [W u e rfe l’ s] se nte nc e for obstruc tion of justic e ba se d on willful c onduc t ” give n the se nte nc ing re c ord. Unite d State s v . Garne r , 988 F.2d 82, 84 (9th C ir. 1993). In discussing W ue rfe l’ s fa ilure to se lf-surre nde r following the de ath of his wife , the distric t c ourt sta te d tha t it did not disa

gre e tha t “ it is tough to im

a gine what

. . . m e n ta l sta

te ” a pe rson in Wue rfe l’ s position m

ight ha ve ha d. 3Sinc e we c annot de t e rm i ne from the re c ord whe the r the distric t c ourt

prope rly “ c onside r[e d] the me ns re a re quire m e nt for a n upwa rd a d justm e n t for willful obstruc tion of justic e , ” the distric t c ourt’ s a pplic at ion of this enha

nc e m e nt is re ve rse d, W

ue rfe l ’ s se nte nc e is va c ate d, a nd the c a se is re m ande d to the distric t
c ourt to de te rm ine whe the r to a pply the obstruc tion of justic e e nha nc e m e nt
c onsiste n t with this disposition. Gardne r , 988 F.2d a t 85. W ue r fe l’s Se nte nc e Wue rfe l c ha lle nge s both the le ngth of his se nte nc e and his life t im e t er m of supe rvise d re le a se . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in im

posing a life tim e te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se . Unite d State s v . C ollins , 684 F.3d 873, 887 (9th C ir. 2012) (stating sta

nda rd of re vie w in de c iding c ha lle n ge s to the le ngth of a supe rvise d
re le a se te rm ). “ [T] h e re is e v e ry indic ation tha

t the distric t

c o urt c onside re d the spe c ific fa c ts pre se nte d by [Wue rfe l’ s] c a se and tha

t its [im position of a

life tim e te rm of supe rvise d re le a s e ] wa s c onsiste nt with its a sse s sm e nt of the se fa c ts.” Unite d State s v . Apodac a , 641 F.3d 1077, 1082 (9th C i r. 2011). W e ne e d not de c ide whe the r Wu e rfe l’ s 72-m onth se nte n c e is substa ntive ly
unre a s ona

ble in light of our reve rsa l on the obstruc tion of justic e e nha nc e m e nt.

4Conc lusion

For the sta

te d re a sons, we REVER SE the distric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of the obstruc tion of justic e e nha nc e m e nt, VAC ATE W

ue rfe l’ s se nte nc e , a

nd RE M AND to the distric t

c o urt for re se n t e nc ing c onsiste nt with this disposition. W e AFFIRM the d istric t c o urt’ s de nia l of W ue rfe l’ s suppre ssion m o tion a n d im position of a life t im e te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se . AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , V ACAT E D, AND RE M A NDE D. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l.

5