T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T hi s courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed under the t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### Ju n e 21, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. CH AN CY DA VI D G UTH RI E,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 8113 ( D. Ct . No . 0 4 - CR - 2 1 5 - WF D)

(D . W y o .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , BARRETT , Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, and O’ BRI EN , C i r cui tJ udge. D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t C h a n c yG u th rie w a s c h a rg e d w ith a ttem p ted in ter sta te tr a n s p o rt a tio n o f

c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yin v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 A (a )( 1 ) a n d (b )( 1 ). P ri o r t o tr ia l, h e f

ile d a m o tio n to s u p p re s s e v id e n c e s e iz e d p u rs u a n t to a s e a rc h w a rr a n t. Fol l ow i ng deni al of the mot i on t o s uppr es s , M r . G uthr i e ent er ed a c ondi t i onal pl ea of g u ilty , res e rv in g th e rig h t to ap p e a l th a t ru lin g . T h e m o tio n to su p p re ss is th e b a sis o f th is ap p e a l. W e ta k e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d A F F IR M .- 2 - I . BA CKGROUND In A u g u st 2 0 0 4 , Y a h o o ! e m p lo y e e s d isc o v e re d th a t n in e tee n f iles ap p e a rin g to co n tai n ch il d p o rno g rap h yh ad b ee n u p load ed to it s serv er. Pu rsua n t t o it s statutory o b lig a tio n , s ee 42 U . S. C . § 13032( b) ( 1) , Y ahoo! r eport ed thi s act i vi tyt o the N at i onal C ent erforM i s s i ng and Expl oi t ed C hi l dr en ( “N C M E C ”) . N C M E C pos i t i vel yi dent i fi ed s even i m ages as chi l d pornogr aphy . I nves t i gat or s ul t i m at el ytr ace d the ac t i vi tyt o a c o m p u te r l o c a te d a t 5 1 5 H a ll A v e n u e , J a c k s o n , W y o m in g (th e “ H a ll A v e n u e re s id e n c e ” ). T h e re s id e n c e b e lo n g e d to C lin to n a n d D e b o ra h G u th ri e . B as ed on thi s i nform at i on, Speci al A gentN i col e B al l i et , an off i cerw i th the W y om i ng I nt ernetC r i m es A gai ns tC hi l dr en Task For ce, pr epar ed an a ffi davi tfora s ear ch w arr antand s ubm i tt ed i tt o part - t i m e M agi s tr at e Judge J ames Lubi ng. D ur i ng hi s r evi ew o f A g e n t B a lli e t’s a f

f id a v it, M a g istra te J u d g e L u b in g n o ted th a t h e w a s a c q u a in ted w ith C l i nt on and D ebor ah G uthr i e bec aus e, as an att orneyi n pr i vat e pr act i ce, he had re p re se n ted th e ir so n , C h a n c y , n e a rlyf o u r y e a rs e a rlierin a c rim in a l m a tter. T h e a f f id a v it m ade no ment i on of C hancy , how ever , and ther e w as nothi ng t o i ndi cat e thatC hancyw as the s ubj ectof i nves t i gat i on forthe i ns t antcr i m e. M agi s tr at e Judge Lubi ng appr oved and s ig n e d th e w a rr a n t to s e a rc h th e H a ll A v e n u e re s id e n c e . U pon exec ut i on of the w arr ant , D ebbi e G uthr i e i nform ed A gentB al l i etthats he a n d h e r h u sb a n d w e re in th e p ro c e ss o f m o v in g , an d th a t th e yh a d a lre a d ym o v e d th e ir c o m p u terto th e ir n e w re sid e n c e . M rs. G u th rie th e n g a v e A g e n t B a lli e t w ritten c o n se n t to s e iz e th e c o m p u te r f

ro m th e irn e w h o m e .A l though the comput erw as ul t i m at el ys ei zed pur s uantt o M s . G uthr i e’ s w r i tt en 1 c o n se n t, an d th e e n su in g se a rc h o f th e c o m p u ter ’s h a rd d riv e w a s c o n d u c ted p u rsu a n t to an i nt erveni ng s ear ch w arr ant , the G overnm entconce des thati tw oul d have ha d no o c c a sio n to se e kM s. G u th rie ’s c o n se n t w ith o u t a v a lidse a rc h w a rra n t f o r th e H a ll A venue r es i dence . A ccor di ngl y , thi s appea l i nvol ves the val i di tyof the fi r s ts ear ch w a rra n t.

- 3 - Fol l ow i ng the s ei zur e of the comput er , A gentB al l i ets oughtanothers ear ch w arr ant

— thi s t i m e, t o s ear ch the har d dr i ve of the s ei zed c om put er . She s ubm i tt ed an aff i davi tt o M agi s tr at e Judge W i l l i am B eaman; the af fi davi tw as i dent i cali n al l m at er i al r es pect s t o the af

fi davi ts he s ubm i tt ed t o M agi s tr at e Judge Lubi ng. M agi s tr at e Judge B eaman appr oved the w arr ant , and the s ear ch of the comput erpr oduced numer ous i m ages of chi l d pornogr aphy . T w o day s l at er , C hancyG uthr i e metw i th hi s par ol e off i cerand con fessed that he po sses sed and up l oad ed the po rnograph i c i m ages t o h i s parent s’ c o m p u te r. M r. G u th rie w a s c h a rg e d in a tw o -c o u n t in d ictm e n t f o r a ttem p ted in ter sta te tr a n s p o rt a tio n o f

c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 A (a )(1 ) a n d (b )(1 ). P rio r to tr ia l, h e f ile d a m o tio n to s u p p re s s e v id e n c e o b ta in e d in th e s e a rc h o f h is p a re n ts ’ h o m e . H e ar gued thatbecaus e M agi s tr at e Judge Lubi ng had r epr es ent ed hi m i n an ea r l i er cr i m i nal m att er , he w as notact i ng as a neutr al and det ache d m agi s tr at e atthe t i m e he sign ed the w arran t app li ca ti o n . T h e f ac ts of the p ri o r rep rese n tat ion are as f o ll o w s: I n 1 A ugus t2000, M r . G uthr i e w as char ged w i th fi r s tand thi r d degr ee s exualas s aul ton a m i no r. M r. G uthr i e’s parent s r et ai ned M agis trat e Judg e L ub i ng , w ho al so w orks as a pr i vat e def

ens e att orney , t o r epr es enthi m . M r . G uthr i e ent er ed i nt o a pl ea a gr eement- 4 -

w i th the governm entand w as s ent ence d t o ei ghtt o t en y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch w as s us pended on the condi t i on thatM r . G uthr i e s ucce s s ful l ycompl et e a bootcamp pr ogr am o f f e re d b yth e W y o m in g D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rre c tio n s. In S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 1 , M r. G u th rie c o m p lete d th e b o o t ca m p p ro g ra m a n d th e a tto rn e y -c lien t re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n M a g istra te J u d g e L u b in g a n d M r. G u th ri e te rm in a te d . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n . T h e re a f ter , M r. G u th rie p lea d e d g u iltyto one countof the i ndi ctm enti n excha nge fordi s m i s s al of the s econd c ount ; he w as s ent ence d t o 180 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . H e now chal l enges the D i s tr i ctC ourt ’ s deni al o f h is m o tio n to s u p p re s s . I I . DI S CU S S I ON In re v iew in g th e d e n ial o f a m o tio n to su p p re ss , this C o u rt v iew s th e e v id e n c e in the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm entand ac cept s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs u n le s s c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s . U ni ted States v. Soders tr and , 4 1 2 F . 3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 5 1 (10 th C ir . 2005) . W e r evi ew de novo a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s l egal concl us i ons r egar di ng the s uffi ci ency o f a s e a rc h w a rr a n t u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. I d. O n appea l , M r . G uthr i e ar gues thatM agi s tr at e Judge Lubi ng w as nota “ne utr al and det ache d m agi s tr at e” be caus e he ha d pr evi ous l yr epr es ent ed M r . G uthr i e i n a cr i m i nal m att eri n w hi ch M r . G uthr i e pl eade d gui l tyt o s exualas s aul ton a mi nor . H e ar gues that w hen pr es ent ed w i th the w arr antt o s ear ch the H al l A venue r es i dence , M agi s tr at e Judge L ubi ng knew ors houl d have know n thatM r . G uthr i e w as i nvol ved i n upl oadi ng the p o rn o g ra p h ic m a ter ials a n d th e re f o re sh o u ldh a v e su a sp o n te r e c u se d h im se lf p u rsu a n t to- 5 -

2 8 U . S . C . § 4 5 5 (a). T o sa f e g u a rd rig h ts p ro tec ted b yth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, “it is e ss e n tial th a t a m agi s tr at e i s s ui ng a s ear ch w arr antbe neutr al and det ache d. ” U ni ted States v. R am i r ez , 6 3 F . 3 d 9 3 7 , 9 4 1 ( 1 0 th C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) . “ [ A ] s e a r c h p r e m i s e d o n a w a rr a n ti s s u e d b y a m a g istra te w h o lac k s s u c h n e u tra litya n d d e tac h m e n t ‘sta n d s o n n o f irm e r g ro u n d th a n if ther e had be en no w arr antatal l . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng C oo l i dg e v. N ew H am pshir e , 40 3 U. S. 4 4 3 , 4 5 3 (19 7 1 )). W hethera magi s tr at e i s neutr al and det ache d i n a part i cul arcas e i s “an in d iv id u a lize d a n d c o n tex tu a l in q u iry [ , an d ] [ c ]o u rts m u st f o c u s o n th e sp e c if

ic c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g th e iss u a n c e o f th e w a rra n t an d d e c id e w h e th e r th e m a g istra te

‘ m ani fes t ed thatneutr al i tyand det achmentdemanded of a j udi ci aloffi cerw hen pr es ent ed w i th a w arr antappl i cat i on fora s ear ch and s ei zur e. ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng Lo-JiSales , I nc. v. N ew Y ork , 4 4 2 U .S . 3 1 9 , 3 2 6 (1 9 7 9 )) . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s f o u n d a lac ko f

n e u tra lityo n th e p a rt o f th e m a g istra te iss u in g a se a rc h w a rra n t in c a se s w h e re th e m a g istra te a id e d law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs in th e irin v e s tig a tio n o f

th e c ri m e , s ee Cool i dge , 4 0 3 U .S . 4 4 3 ; Lo-JiSales , 442 U . S. 319, a n d in c a s e s w h e re th e m a g is tr a te h a d a p e c u n ia ry in te re s t in is s u in g s e a rc h w a rr a n ts , s ee C o n n a lly v . G e o rg ia , 4 2 9 U . S . 2 4 5 , 2 5 0 (19 7 7 ). N eith er o f th ese circu m stan ce s are p r e s e n th e r e . M r . Gu th r i e a r g u e s , h o we v e r , th a tth e d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s t a tu t e , 2 8 U. S . C. § 455 gi ves cont extt o the “ne utr al and det ache d” deba t e and thati f a magi s tr at e w as r equi r ed ( and fa i l ed) t o r ecus e hi m s el f underthe s t atut e, then he c annotbe cons i der edB e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e th a t re c u sa l w a s n o t re q u ire d , w e e x p re ss n o o p in io n a s to 2 w h ethe r a v iolati o n o f 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 5 5 (a) also v iolates th e F o u rth A m en d m en t’ s re q u ir e m e n t th a t a n e u tr a l a n d d e ta c h e d m a g is tr a te is s u e a w a rr a n t. C f . U ni ted States v. Mur phy , 768 F. 2d 1518, 1540 ( 7th C i r . 1985) ( not i ng thatthe “appear ance of i m pr opr i ety ”— as oppos ed t o actual i m pr opr i ety— caus es the j udi ci al s y s t em t o s uffe rbut d o e s n o t u n d e rc u t p e rso n a l rig h ts); U n itedS ta tes v . L o v a g lia , 9 5 4 F . 2 d 8 1 1 , 8 1 4 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) (st ati n g that C o n g ress inten d ed that § 4 5 5 (a) w o u ld se t an “ o b jecti v e stan d ard d e s ig n e d to p ro m o te p u b lic c o n f id e n c e in th e im p a rt ia lity o f th e ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s ” ). I n deny i ng the mot i on t o s uppr es s , the D i s tr i ctC ourtr el i ed on § 455( b) w hi ch 3 pr ovi des thata j udge s houl d di s qual i fyhi m s el f, “w her e he ha s per s onal bi as orpr ej udi ce conce rni ng a party , orper s onal know l edge of di s put ed evi dent i aryfac t s conce rni ng the p ro c e e d in g .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 4 5 5 (b ). M r. G u th rie d o e s n o t ar g u e o n ap p e a l th a t th is p ro v is io n a p p lie s to h is m o tio n to s u p p re s s . A c c o rd in g ly, w e d o n o t a d d re s s it h e re .

- 6 - “ n e u tra l an d d e tac h e d ” a s re q u ire d b yth e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. 2 T he di s qual i fi cat i on s t atut e pr ovi des i n r el evantpart : “A nyj us t i ce, j udge, or m a g istra te o f

th e U n ited S tate s s h a ll d isq u a lifyh im se lf in a n yp ro c e e d in g in w h ich h is im p arti ali tym igh t r ea so n ab lyb e q u esti o n ed . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 5 5 (a). R ec u sal ca ses a re 3 “extr emel yfac tdr i ven, ” B r yce v. E pis copal C hur ch i n the D i oces e of C olo. , 289 F. 3d 6 4 8 , 6 6 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), and the t es tforr ecus al i s “w hethera r eas onabl e per s on, know i ng al l the r el evantfac t s , w oul d harbordoubt s aboutthe j udge’ s i m part i al i ty , ” D a v id v. C i t y and C ount

y of D enve r , 101 F. 3d 1344, 1350 ( 10th C i r . 1996) . A j udge i s r equi r ed to re c u se h im se lf

w h e n th e re is “ a n ap p e a ra n c e o f b ias , reg a rd les s o f

w h e th e r th e re is actual bi as . ” B r

yce , 289 F. 3d at659. W e r evi ew the j udge’ s deci s i on r egar di ng r ecus al f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . D a v id , 101 F. 3d at1351. W e conc l ude, fors ever al r eas ons , thatr ecus al w as notr equi r ed i n thi s cas e. A s an i ni t i al m att er , thatM agi s tr at e Judge Lubi ng w as cas ual l yacqua i nt ed w i th C l i nt on and- 7 -

D ebor ah G uthr i e— the i ndi vi dual s actual l yl i s t ed i n the s ear ch w arr ant

— does notr ai s e the s pect erof bi as . J acks on, W y om i ng i s a s m al l rur al t ow n. T he verynatur e of s uch t ow ns i s thatm agi s tr at e j udges m aybe ac quai nt ed w i th peopl e w hos e names come befor e the c o u rt a s b e in g in v o lv e d in a c rim e . M e re a c q u a in tan c e d o e s n o t re q u ire re c u sa l, ev e n if th e a c q u a in ta n c e is b e c a u s e th e in d iv id u a l is re la te d to a f o rm e r c lie n t. See U

ni ted States v. Hef f i ngton , 952 F. 2d 275, 279 ( 9th C i r . 1991) ( T hough “j udges . . . i n rur al count i es often kn ow m ore abo ut the local cri m i nal r eci divi st s . . . than theirm ore urban co l l eagu es, w e a re n o t p re p a re d to d isq u a lifysm a ll-tow n ju d g e s o n d e m a n d .”). M r. G u th rie rig h tly does notar gue thatbas ed on thatfac t , al one, M agi s tr at e Judge Lubi ng s houl d have re c u s e d h im s e lf

f ro m th e m a tte r. M r . G uthr i e cont ends , how ever , thatbecaus e hi s par ent s w er e l i s t ed on the w arr ant , becaus e the H al l A venue r es i dence w as M r . G uthr i e’ s addr es s dur i ng the pr i or r epr es ent at i on, and bec aus e the cr i m e w as s exuali n natur e, M agi s tr at e Judge Lubi ng s h o u ld h a v e k n o w n th a t M r. G u th ri e w a s th e ta rg e t o f th e in v e s tig a tio n . W e d is a g re e . T h e f a c ts , a s th e ye x is te d b e f o re M a g is tr a te Ju d g e L u b in g , see U nited S tates v . A vi lez - R eyes , 160 F. 3d 258, 260 ( 5th C i r . 1998) ( J ones , J . , di s s ent i ng) ( “r ecus al m ot i ons m us tbe vi ew ed i n t erm s of eve nt s as the part i es knew them atthe t i m e”) , w oul d l ead a r eas onabl e per s on t o bel i eve onl ythata form ercl i ent ’ s par ent s w er e bei ng i nves t i gat ed fora cr i m e. T he af

fi davi tpr es ent ed t o M agi s tr at e Judge Lubi ng di d notgi ve any i ndi cat i on thatM r . G uthr i e w as the s ubj ectof an i nves t i gat i on. I n fac t , even l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s w er e notaw ar e of M r . G uthr i e’ s i nvol vementunt i l he admi tt ed- 8 -

c o m m ittin g th e c ri m e in a m e e tin g w ith h is p ro b a tio n o f f ic e r n e a rl ya w e e kla te r. I n anyevent , even i f M agi s tr at e Judge Lubi ng m i ghtr eas onabl yhave be l i eved that M r . G uthr i e w as i nvol ved i n the i ns t antm att er , “a j udge’ s pr i orr epr es ent at i on of a w i tnes s orpartyi n an unr el at ed matt erdoes notaut om at i cal l yr equi r e di s qual i fi cat i on. ” D a v id , 1 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 1 ; Mi tchael v. I ntr acor p, I nc. , 179 F. 3d 847, 861 ( 10th C i r . 1999) (sa m e ); se e a lso U

n itedS ta tes v . L o v a g lia , 954 F. 2d 811, 815–17 ( 2d C i r . 1992) (se n ten c in g ju d g e ’s p rio r f rie n d sh ip w ith v ictim o f c rim e d idn o t re q u ire re c u sa l in d e f e n d a n t’s s e n ten c in g p ro c e e d in g ); U ni ted States v. O ut ler , 6 5 9 F .2 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 1 2 (5 th C i r . 1981) ( m agi s tr at e j udge w ho i s s ued s ear ch w arr antw as notobl i gat ed t o di s qual i fy hi m s el f eve n though he pr os ecut ed def endantthr ee y ear s ear l i eri n unr el at ed ca s e) . H er e, M a g istra te J u d g e L u b in g h a d a n a tto rn e y -c lien t re latio n sh ip w ith M r. G u th rie in a w h o lly unr el at ed matt erthatended appr oxi m at el ythr ee y ear s pr i ort o the fa ct s gi vi ng r i s e t o the in s ta n t a p p e a l. M o re o v e r, th e a f

f id a v it p re se n ted to M a g istra te J u d g e L u b in g w a s o v e rw h e lm in g ly s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h pr obabl e caus e. N otonl ydoes M r . G uthr i e conc ede thi s fac t , butan i ndi s put abl yneutr al and det ache d m agi s tr at e— M agi s tr at e Judge B eaman— r evi ew ed the s ame m at er i al fac t s , found thats uch evi dence amount ed t o pr obabl e caus e, and author i zed a s e a rc h o f

th e c o m p u te r’ s h a rd d ri v e . See O ut ler , 65 9 F . 2d at13 12 (absentotherfact ors, w h e n e v id e n c e “ o v e rw h e lm in g ly ” e sta b lish e s p ro b a b le c a u se , the re is n o re a so n to q u e stio n th e m a g istra te’ s im p a rtiality ). T h e re is n o e v id e n c e to su g g e st th a t M a g istra te J udge Lubi ng bas ed hi s deci s i on on anythi ng otherthan the fa ct s pr es ent ed i n A gent- 9 -

B all iet ’s af

fid av it . W ith o u t suc h ev iden ce , w e d o n o t qu esti o n M ag istrate Ju d g e L u b ing ’s im p a rt ia lity. I I I . CO NC L US I ON Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons w e fi nd thatM agi s tr at e Judge Lubi ng w as notr equi r ed to rec u se h im self u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 5 5 (a). W e the ref o re A F F IR M the D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f M r. G u th ri e ’s m o tio n to s u p p re s s . ENTERED FOR TH E CO UR T,

D eane l l R eec e Tacha C i r cui tJ udge