### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10791

U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la in tiff

–A p p e lle e , v. J AM ES L
. RUDZ AVI CE, D efen d a n t–A p p ell a n t
.

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , ST E W A R T , an d O W E N , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P R ISC ILL AR
. O W E N , C i rcui t Ju dg e: J a m e s R u d z a v ic e w a s co n v ic te d in a b e n c h tr ia l fo r o n e co u n t o f k n o w in g ly
r e c e i vi ng c hi l d p o r no gr ap hy i n v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U
. S. C. § 2 25 2( a) ( 2) a nd o ne c o unt
o f a tt e m p tin gto tr a n s fe r o b s c e n e m a te r ia l to a m in o r u n d e r th e a g e o f 1 6 in vi ol ati on of

18 U
. S

. C

. § 1470

. O n a pp eal , R u dza vi ce argues t h at: ( 1) t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t er r e d i n re f

us i ng t o ac qui t hi m of t he cha r ge of

v i o l at i ng § 1 47 0 be c aus e he di d n ot att em pt t o t ran sfer obsc en e m ater i al s t o an i n di vi du alw h o w as i n fact
u n d er th e a ge of 1 6 ; (2 ) § 1 4 7 0 i s u n con sti tu ti on a l l y v a gu e b eca u se itfa i l s to def i ne t he t er m s “ obs c ene” and “ se xualc onduct ” ; ( 3) he s houl d h ave r ec ei ved an of fens e- l eve lr educ t i on f orac c ept ance of

r es ponsibi l i t y underU
. S. S. G

. § 3E 1. 1; United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 21, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10791

See 1 8U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 2 (b)( 1 ). 1 2 a n d (4 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d b y fa ilin gto a d e q u a te ly e x p la in its s e n te n c e in te r m s o f th e fa c to r s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). W e a ffir m . I A g r a n d ju r y in d ic te d J a m e s L
. R u d z a v ic e fo r o n e co u n t o f k n o w in g ly receivi n g chi l d pornograp h y i n vi ol ati on of 18 U
. S

. C

. § 225 2( a) ( 2) ( C ou n t O n e) and o ne c o unto f

a t t e m pt i ng t o t r ans fe r o bs c e ne m at e r i alt o a m i no r und e r t he
a ge of 16 i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C

. § 1470 ( C ount Tw o)

. Tw o addi t i on a l cou n ts soug h t f orf ei t u re of

vari ou s com pu t er equ i pm en t a l l eged l y u sed i n the of fen ses. R u dza vi ce s i gn ed a p l ea agr e e m e n t w i t h t h e G overnm en t i n w h i ch h e pl ead ed gu i l t y on l y t o C ou n t O n e of t h e i n di ct m en t an d pl ead ed t rue t o th e for feiture pr o vi s i o ns , and i n ex c hang e , t he G o ve r nm e ntagr e e d t o di s m i s s CountTw o . The Pr o ba t i o n Of

f i c e pr e pa r e d a Pr e s e nt e nc e Rep o r t ( PSR )

. The s t at ut o r y m ax i m um sentence on C ou n t O n e w as 20 yea rs. 1 A t t h e s e n ten ci n g h ea ri n g, t h e cou rt rej ected the plea ag ree m en t, exp ress i n g concern that t h e di sm i ssalof C ou n t T w o “ w ou l d p re v e n t t h e C ou rt f r om go i ng as hi gh as t he advi so r y gui del i nes i ndi c at e w oul d be appro pri at e a s a sentence i n t h i s c ase, w h i ch w ou l d be f or 324 to 405 m o n th s. ” R u dza vi ce de c i de d t o per si st in hi s pl e a o f g ui l t y t o CountO ne a nd p l e as o f t r ue t o t he f orf ei t u re al l egati on s. R u dza vi ce m oved t o di sm i ss C ou n t T w o, argu i n g t h at t h e st atute’ s use of t h e w ord “ obscene” w as u n consti t u t i on al l y vag u e. A t a h eari n g on t h e m att er, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t a l s o q ue s t i o ne d whet he r t he s t at ut e c o ul d b e v i o l at e d when t he pe r s o n r e c e i vi ng t he m at e r i al s w as no t a c t ual l y unde r t he a ge o f 1 6, a nd t he court ordered the G overnm en t t o bri ef both i ssues. T h e G overnm en t f i l ed a bri ef i n o ppo s i t i o n t o Rudz av i c e ’ s m o t i o n, a nd t he di s t r i c t c o ur t de ni e d t he m o t i o n.N o. 08- 10791

3 R u dza vi ce w a ive d h i s r i gh t t o a j u ry t ri alan d ag reed t o a st i pu l ati on of
e vi de nc e . The c as e p ro c e e de d t o t r i al , a nd t he di s t r i c t c o ur t r e c e i ve d t he st i pu l ati on of

fact s i n t o evi den ce al on g w i t h 31 st i pu l ated G overnm en t exh i bi t s. T h e G overnm en tcal l ed on l y on e w i t n ess, A gen t K atheri n e Sm i t h , w h o described he r und e r c o ve r c o nve r s at i o n wi t h Rudz av i c e i n a n i nt e r ne t c hatr o o m a nd t he i m ages R u dza vi ce s en t t o her du ri n g t h e conversati on . Sh e al so c on f i rm ed on
c r o s s - e xa m i nat i o n t hats he w as no t und er the ag e o f 1 6 att he t i m e t he conversati on t ran spi red. A t t h e concl u si on of t h e t ri al , R u dz a v ice m oved f or ac qui t t alpur s uantt o Fe de r alRu l e o f Cr i m i nalPr o c e dur e 2 9, a r gui ng t hatv e nue w as i m pro per ; no e vi denc e o f t he c om m uni t y s t andards of E lPaso , Texas , w as pr e s e nt e d; t he i m ag e s s e nt by R udz av i c e w e r e noti n fac t ob s c e ne ; a nd t hatt he
c o ur t h a d t o a c q u i t Ru d z a v i c e o f Co u n t Two b e c a u s e t h e p e r s o n t o wh o m he att em pted t o t ran sfer t h e m ate ria ls w as not i n fact un der age 16 at t h e t i m e. Th e c our t deni ed t he m ot i on and f ound R udzavi c e g ui l t y. Th e Pr obat i on O f

f i c e pr epar ed a rev i sed P SR

. Ru dzavi c e f i l ed s eve r al
w ri t t en obj ect i on s, i n cl u di n g an obj ect i on t o t h e d en i alof an of fen se- l evel redu ct i on f

or acceptance of

res pon sibi l i t y. Th e P robati on O f f i ce r ecom m en ded t h at t h e reducti on not be granted becau se R u dza vi ce “ di d n ot di scuss hi s of fen se o f c o n v ic tio n w ith th is p r o b a tio n o ffic e , o th e r th a n h is s tip u la tio n to th e co u r t.” R udzavi c e f

i l ed a w r i t t en r es ponse t o t he PS R A ddendum , m ai nt ai ni ng t hat credi t f or acc eptan ce of responsi bi l i t y shou l d be ap pl i ed. T h e G overnm en t t ook
no po s i t i o n o n whet he r t he r e duc t i o n s ho ul d b e g r ant e d. A t sentenci n g, R u dza vi ce agai n obj ect ed t o t h e den i alof a redu ct i on f

or acceptanc e o f r e sp on sibi l i t y, bu t t h e courtoverrul ed the obj ect i on . Th e court ad o pt e d t he PSR, a nd, a f t e r he ar i ng Rudza vi c e ’ s a t t o r ne y m ak e a l e ngt hy argu m en t f

or a dow n w ard d epa rt u re or a bel ow - G u i del i n es s en t en ce based on t h e 18 U .S .C

. § 3553 ( a) fact ors, t h e courtden i ed the m ot i on f or dow n w ard dep art u re and t h e a lter n ate r equ estf or s en t en ci n g vari an ce. Th e courtN o. 08- 10791

SeeU n ited St atesv . Harris , 5 6 6F .3 d 4 2 2 , 4 3 5( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 9). 2 18U.S.C . § 147 0. 3 4 s e nt e nc e d Rudz av i c e t o t e r m s o f i m pr i s o nm e nt o f 24 0 m o nt hs f o r Count O ne a nd 12 0 m o nt hs f

o r CountTw o , t o r un c o ns e c ut i ve l y, i n a cc o r da nc e w i t h t he G u i del i n es. T h e courtal so or dered R u dza vi ce t o ser ve concu rrent t erm s of sup ervi sed rel ease f

or l i fe as t o C o u n t O n e an d f or t w o years as t o C ou n t T w o. O n t h e G overnm en t ’ s m ot i on , t h e courtdi sm i ssed t h e f orf ei t u re al l egati on s. R u d z a v ic e tim e ly file d a n o tic e o f a p p e a l. II R u d z a v ic e fir s t a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in re fu s in gto a c q u it h i m of t h e charge of

vi ol ati n g § 147 0 becau se he di d n ot att em p t to t ran sfer o bs c e ne m at e r i al s t o a n i ndi vi dua lw ho w as i n fac t und e r t he a ge o f 1 6. The G over n m e n t m ai n t ai n s t h at t h e st atute’ s prosc ri pti on of att em pted of

fen ses cov ers R u d za vice’ s con d u ct a n d th a t R u d za vice’ s i n terp reta ti on of th e s ta tu te
w o ul d r e qui r e l aw enf o r c e m e ntt o e nda nge r a n a c t ualm i no r i n a ppr e he ndi ng an d prosec u t i n g sexu al preda t ors l i ke R u dza vi ce. B ecau se R u dza vi ce m oved f or a j u dg m en t of acqu i t t alat t h e concl u si on of t h e ben ch tr i al , w e revi ew de n ovo. 2 S ection 14 7 0 pr ov i d es th a t: W h oever, usi n g t h e m ai lo r a n y faci l i t y or m ean s of i n t erst ate orf

orei gn com m erce, kn ow i n gl y t ran sfers obscene m att er t o an ot h er i n di vi du alw h o ha s not att ai n ed the age of

16 yea rs, kn ow i n g t h at s u ch other i n di vi du alha s not att ai n ed the age of 16 yea rs, or att em p ts to do so, shallbe f i n ed u n der t h i s t i t l e, i m pr i s o ne d no t m o r e t han 10 y e ar s , o r b o t h. 3 The fac t s s t i pul at e d b y Rudza vi c e a nd t he t r i alt e s t i m o ny o f Age ntK athe r i ne S m i th of th e T ex a s A ttorn ey G en era l’ s O ff i ce es tab l i sh ed tha t A ge n t Sm i th ent er ed a c hat r oo m pos i ng as a 15- year - ol d gi r lnam ed Shel l y, A gentSm i t h w as i n fact 3 8 years old a t the t i m e, a n d A gen t S m i t h recei ved a ch at m essage f romN o. 08- 10791

See United States v. Hubb ard , 4 8 0 F
. 3 d 3 4 1 , 3 4 6 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7) (“Wh e n astat ute 4 crimin ali zes conduct b ecau se th e victi m or inte nded victim i s a minor , we have hel d that it is of n o m om ent that th e pe rson with whom adefe ndant attempted to e ngage in prohibite d conduct was act ua ll y anadult as long as the defen dantbelieve d th e inten ded victi m to be a mi n or. . . . ”)

. 2 5 1 F .3 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 1 -1 3( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 1 ) (c on struin g1 8U .S .C

. § 2 4 2 2 (b))

. 5 Id

. at51 3. 6 Id

. 7 Id

. 8 5 R u dza vi ce, t o w h o m s h e id e n t i f i ed h ersel f

as a 15- year- ol d gi rlf rom E lP aso, T exas. R u dza vi ce c on t en ds t h at t h ese fact s c an n ot sup port a conv i ct i on un der § 1 4 7 0
. T h i s cou rt ha s rep ea ted l y rej ected si m i l a r a rg u m en ts i n ch a l l en ge s to convic t i on s un der ot h er st atutes t h at cri m i n al i ze con du cta i m ed at m i n ors. For 4
e xa m pl e , i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. F arn er , w e he l d t h at a pe r s o n c o ul d c o m m i t t he of fen se of att em pti n g t o use a faci l i t y or m ean s of i n t erst ate c om m erce t o i n du ce or enti ce an i n di vi du alyou n ge r than 18 yea rs ol d to en gag e i n prost i t u t i on or a n y u n l a w ful sexu a lactivi ty e v e n i f th e v i cti m i n the cas e w a s an ad u l t, unde r c o ve r l aw enf

o r c e m e nt o f

f i c e r . Thi s c o ur t s t at e d t hat“ c r i m i nala t t e m pt 5
c as e s ” r e qui r e “ pr o o f of tw o elem e nt s : f

i r s t , t hatt he de fe nda nta c t e d wi t h t he ki nd o f c ul pa bi l i t y o t he r w i s e r e qui r e d f o r t he c o m m i s s i o n o f t he und e r l yi ng sub st an t i ve of

fen se, an d, sec on d, t h at t h e defen d a n t h ad eng aged i n condu ct
w hi c h c o ns t i t ut e s a s ubs t ant i als t e p t o w ar d com m i ssi o n o f t he c r i m e . ” “ The 6 sub st an t i alst ep m u stbe cond u ctw h i ch st rongly c orroborat es t h e f i rm n ess of [ t h e] defen da n t ’ s c ri m i n alatt em pt. ” B ecau se “Fa rner’ s schem e, if ful l y carri ed 7 out as h e ‘ d e s i r e d ’o r ‘ p l a nn e d , ’was n o t t o e ng a g e i n s e x ua lr e l a t i o ns wi t h an ad ul t FBI o f

f i c e r ” b ut a 1 4- ye ar - o l d g i r l , w e af f i r m e d Far ne r ’ s c r i m i nala t t e m pt
c o nvi c t i o n. 8N o. 08- 10791

18U.S.C . § 147 0. 9 Accord United States v. Spu rlock , 495 F.3 d 101 1, 101 3 (8th Cir. 2 007) (rej ectin g the 10 argument that a crimin al attempt conviction und er § 14 70 coul d not b e supported where the evidenceshow edth at th e victi m w a s ana dult , u n de rc overo ff ice r) ; se e alsoU

n ited St atesv . Do dge , 55 4 F .3d 1 357 , 13 59 n.2 (11th Cir. 200 9) (statin g in dicta that the court would r each th e sa meh ol din gif th e is su e we rer ais ed), reh’g enban c granted and

opin ion vacat ed , 56 6 F .3d 9 7 6( 1 1 thC ir
. 2 0 0 9).

Kolen der v. Lawson , 4 6 1 U .S

. 3 5 2 , 3 5 7( 1 9 8 3). 11 United States v. Monro e , 1 7 8F .3 d 3 0 4 , 3 0 8( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 9). 12 6 R u dza vi ce f

ocuses on the l an gu age of § 1470 st atin g th at t h e act or m u st t r ans fe r i m ag e s w hi l e kno w i ng t hat s uc h o t he ri ndi vi dua l“ has no t a t t ai ne d t he age of 16 years. ” R u dza vi ce argues t h at t h i s s peci f i c m e ns r e a el em en t requi res t h at t h e G overnm en t prove t h at t h e vi ct i m w as u n der t h e age of 16 even w h en th e a lle g e d o ffe n s e w a s in c h o a te
. W e d is a g r e e . T h e sta tu te cri m i n a l i ze s an attem p t t o “tran sfer[] o b scen e m a tter t o an ot h er i n di vi du alw h o h as n ot att ai n ed the age of 16 yea rs, kn ow i n g t h at s u ch ot her i ndi vi dualhas not at t ai ned t he age of 16 y ear s. ” Ru dzavi c e’ s c onductw as

9
an att em pt t o eng age i n pr eci sel y t h e prohibi t ed cond u ct
. B ecau se R u dza vi ce, l i ke Farne r , w oul d have vi ol at ed t he l aw i f hi s sc hem e w er e f

ul l y c ar r i ed o ut as he des i r ed o r pl anned, he i s l i abl e f orc r i m i nalat t em pt under § 1 470. 10 III R u d z a v ic e n e x t a r g u e s th a t § 1 4 7 0 is u n c o n s tit u tio n a lly v a g u e b e c a u s e it fai l s t o de f

i ne t he t e r m s “ o bs c e ne ” a nd “ s e xua lc o nduc t
. ” The

“ voi d- f or - vaguenes s” doct r i ne “r equi r es thata pe nals t at ut e de f i ne t he c r i m i nal of fe ns e wi t h s uf

f i c i e nt d e f

i ni t e ne s s t ha t o r d i na r y p e o p l e c a n un d e r s t a nd w hat
c o nduc t i s p r o h i b i t e d a n d i n a man n e r t h a t d o e s n o t e n c o u r a g e a r b i t r a r y a nd d is c r im in a to r y e n fo r c e m e n t.” W h e th e r a cr im in a l s ta tu te i s u n con sti tu tio n a lly 11 vag u e i s a questi on of l aw , w h i ch w e revi ew de n ovo. 12N o. 08- 10791

18U.S.C . § 147 0. 134 1 3U .S

. 1 5 , 2 4 -2 5( 1 9 7 3). 14 See Hamling v. Un ited States , 418 U.S. 87, 105 (197 4) (hol ding that 18 U.S.C. § 1 461 15 inco rp or ate s Miller); Un ited St ates v. 1 2 2 0 0 -F oo t Reels of

S u pe r 8mm. F

il m , 41 3 U .S. 12 3, 1 30 n.7 ( 1973) (inco rp orat ing Miller“[i]f and when such a ‘ s erious do ubt’ i s rai sed a s to the va gu ene ss of the words ‘ob scene ,’ ‘l ewd,’ ‘l asciviou s,’ ‘filthy ,’ ‘indece nt,’ or ‘immoral’ a s usedto de sc rib e re gulate d mate ri al in19 U. S. C. § 1 3 0 5 (a) a n d 1 8U .S .C

. § 1 4 6 2 ”) ; Un ited St atesv . Th ev is , 48 4 F .2d 114 9, 115 2 (5th Cir. 1973) (construing18 U.S.C. § 1462 and notin g that “[t]h e ter m ‘ob sc ene’as use d in the st atut e i s a l egal ter m of art , notmer ely a genericor des cri pt ive te rm” a n d “h a s b ee nth e subj ect of muche xplic ationinS u pr em e C ourto pinio n s”). See 18 U.S.C. § 1 461
. 16 Reeves v. McC

onn , 6 3 8F .2 d 7 6 2 , 7 6 3 -7 6 4( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 8 1 ). 17 7 Sec t i on 1470 pro hi bi t s t he i nters t at e t r ansf erof “ obs c ene m at t er ” t o a n i ndi vi dua lund e r t he a ge o f 1 6. I n Mi l l er v. C alif ornia , th e S u prem e C ou rt 13
ar t i c ul at e d a t hr e e - pa r t t e s t f o r de t e r m i ni ng w he t he r m at e r i al i s “ o bs c e ne ” a nd t her ef or e fal l s out si de t he s c ope of Fi r st A m endm ent pro t ec t i ons . C our t s r ead 14 t h at t esti n t o federal obsceni t y st atutes i n order t o constr u e t h em i n a m an n er cons isten t w i t h t h e C on st i t u t i on . A ccor di n gl y, t h e fact t h at § 147 0 does n ot 15
s p e c ific a lly d e fin e th e w o r d “o b s c e n e ” d o e s n o t re n d e r i t u n c o n s tit u tio n a lly
v a g u e . N e ve rt he l e s s , Rudz av i c e a r gue s t hat§ 1 47 0 i s di s t i ngu i s hab l e f r o m t he st at ut es c ons t r ued as i nco r por at i ng Mi l l er , and t her ef ore uphel d as
c o ns t i t ut i o nal , be c aus e § 14 70 o nl y pr o hibi t s “ o bs c e ne ” m at e r i al w he r e as t he oth er st a tu tes p roh ib i ted m a terialtha t w a s “ob scen e, l ew d , l a scivi ou s, i n d ece n t, f i l t hy o r v i l e . ” H o w e ve r , t hi s c o ur t ha s he l d t hata l o c alo r di nanc e pr o hi bi t i ng 16

“ t h e am pl i f

i cat i on of

w ords or soun ds t h at are ‘ obscene, ’w i t h no f u rt h er def i ni t i on o f

t hat t er m ” w as notunco nst i t ut i onal l y vag ue w hen th e te r m w as con stru ed to con form to th e requ i rem en ts of t h e F i rst A m en d m en t as set forth i n Mi l l er . R u d za vice’ s cl a i m i s w i th ou t m erit.

17N o. 08- 10791

United States v. Washin gton , 34 0F. 3 d 2 2 2 , 2 2 7( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3); see a lso U nited States 18 v. S pires , 7 9F .3 d 4 6 4 , 4 6 7( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 6) (“ B ec au se t he tri al co u rt’sa sse ssm ent of a de fe n dant’ s c ontritio nwilld ep en d h eavilyo nc re dib ilityass es sme nts , th e ‘ cl earlye rron eo u s’ st a n dardwilln earlyalw ay s s u st ainth e j u dgme nt of th e di strictc ourt .”). Washin gton , 34 0 F .3d at 2 27. 19U .S .S .G. § 3 E 1 .1 ( 2 0 0 8). 20 8 I V R u dza vi ce’ s f

i n alt w o contenti on s r el ate t o hi s se n te n ci n g. R u dza vi ce argu es t h at he shou l d h ave recei ved an of fen se- l evel redu ct i on f or acc eptan ce of resp on sibi l i ty u n d er U
. S

. S

. G

. § 3E 1
. 1
. W e “rev i ew [] a d i stri ct cou rt’ s refu sa lto
r e d u c e a d e fe n d a n t’s o ffe n s e le v e l fo r a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility u n d e r § 3 E 1 .1
w i t h a s t and ar d e ve n m o r e de fe r e nt i alt han a pur e l y c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us st an da rd. ” W e w i l lnot di st u rb a di st ri ctcourt ’ s rul i n g t h at a defen da n t i s not

18
e n tit le d t o a s e n te n c in gre d u c tio n fo r a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility u n le s s “it is
w ith o u t fo u n d a tio n .” 19 Se c t i o n 3 E1. 1 pr o vi de s f o r a r edu ct i on of

t he o f fe ns e l e ve l“ [ i ] f

t he d e fe n d a n t c le a r ly d e m o n s tr a te s a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility fo r h is o ffe n s e .” 20 T h e com m en t ary st ates:

2. Th i s adj u st m en t i s not i n t en de d to a pp l y t o a defenda n t w h o pu t s t h e gove rn m en t t o i t s burd en of p roo f a t t ri a lby de n yin g th e es sen ti a lfa ctu a lelem en ts o f g ui l t , i s c o nvi c t e d, a nd o nl y t he n a dm i t s g u i l t a nd exp ress es r e m orse. C on vi ct i on by tr i al , how ever, does n ot au t om ati cal l y pr e c l ude a de fe n da n t f rom consi derati on f

or s u ch a redu ct i on . I n rare si t u ati on s a d e fen da n t m ay cl earl y dem on st rat e an accept an ce of r e s po ns i bi l i t y f

o r hi s c r i m i nalc o nduc t e ven tho ugh he exe r c i se s hi s c ons t i t ut i onalr i gh t to a t r i al
. Thi s m ay occu r, f or ex a m p l e, w h ere a d e fen d a n t goe s to tri a lto as se r t and pr es er ve i ss ues thatdo not r el at e t o fac t ual gu i l t ( e. g. , t o m ak e a co n sti t u t i on alchal l en ge t o a statu te or a ch a l l en ge to th e ap p l i ca b i l i ty of a statu te to h is co n d u c t). In e a c h s u c h in s ta n c e , h o w e v e r , aN o. 08- 10791

U .S .S .G. § 3 E 1 .1 c mt
. n .2 ( 2 0 0 8). 21 Un ited

St atesv . Ra

gsdale , 4 2 6F .3 d 7 6 5 , 7 8 1 ( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). 22 See United States v. Cordero , 465F .3d 6 26, 632(5th Cir. 2 006) (con sideringth e fact 23 that th e defendant had “move d for a j udgment of acquittal at th e e nd of th e trial‘o n the gro und s that th e Governme nt
. . . fail ed toproveit s casebeyo nd a r eason abl e do ubt’” in de te rm inin gth at th e de fe n dant had not“provenhise ntitl em ent toanacc ep tan ce -o fre sp on sib ilityr edu ctio n”)

. 9

det e r m i nat i o n t hat a de fe nda nt has accept ed r es ponsibi l i t y w i l lbe bas ed pr i m ar i l y upon pr e- t r i al statem en ts an d con d u ct. 21

“ T h e defenda n t bears t h e bu rden of provi n g en t i t l em en t t o a decrease i n of fen se le v e l fo r a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility .” 22 R u dza vi ce argues t h at he i s enti t l ed to a redu ct i on f or acc eptan ce of responsi bi l ity becau se t h e onl y reason h e w en t t o t ri alw as t o m ak e a c o ns t i t ut i o nalc hal l e nge t o § 1 47 0 and t o c hal l e nge t he a ppl i c ab i l i t y o f t he
s t at ut e t o hi s c o nduc t
. Rudz av i c e f ur t he r a r gue s tha t h e coo pe r at e d wi t h t he pol i c e t w i c e b ef

or e he w as ev eri ndi c t ed, and t hat , p ri or t o t r i al , he had
s t i pul at e d t o e ve r y e l e m e nt t he c o ur t r ul e d ne c e s s ar y t o con vi ct hi m o f t he of fen se. W e cann ot concl u de that t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s ref u salto gran t t h e reducti on in o ffe n s e le v e ls is w ith o u t fo u n d a tio n . A lth o u g h R u d z a v ic e a r g u e s th a t t h e o n ly
rea son h e w en t to tri a lw a s to m a k e a con sti tu ti on a lch a l l en ge to § 14 7 0 an d to cha l l en ge t h e app l i cabi l i t y of t h e stat u t e to hi s c on du ct , R u dza vi ce m oved f or a j udgm ent of

ac qui tta latt he e nd of t he t r i alon t he gr ounds t hat t her e w as i n suf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o est abli sh the el em en t s of t h e of fen se. R u dza vi ce argued

23 th a t t h e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f th e co m m u n ity s ta n d a r d s th a t w o u ld ap pl y i n t h i s c ase an d that there w as insuff i ci en t ev i den ce that t h e i m ages w ereN o. 08- 10791

SeeRagsdale , 42 6 F .3d at 7 82 (hol ding that defe ndants who went to trialto dispute 24 w he t her material s sati sfied the obsce nitytest und er Millerwere challe nging th eir factu al guilt, and ther eforenot “qualif[i ed] fo r asentencing cre dit und er the rarecircumstance where th e de fe n dant proc ee dst o trial b u t canstill qu alifyf ora§ 3 E 1 .1 r edu ctio n”)

. See United States v. Wise , 17 9 F .3d 1 84, 186(5th Cir. 1 999) (“Condition al plea s may 25 be permitte d, an d this i s theu sualpro cedur al avenu e for pre serving th e defendant’s obj ectio n toadis po sitiv e pr etri al rulin gan d ob viatin gth e n ee d fo r af ulltri al. ”)

. See United States v. Farias , 4 6 9 F
. 3 d 3 9 3 , 4 0 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6) (n o tingth at the 26 defen dant “did not go to trial to preserve his plea agreement argument—after the court ruled on thatiss ue, he coul d have ask ed for a cond itio nal ple a allow ing him to app eal thatruling, a r equ est h e n ever ma de,” and c on c lu ding th at “[t]he court’s re fusalto find acce ptance of re sp on sib ilitywa s notwithout fo u n dation”)

.

See United States v. Lopez-Velasquez , 5 2 6F .3 d 8 0 4 , 8 0 6( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 27 Pu cket t v. Un ited

States , 1 2 9S

. C t. 1 4 2 3 , 1 4 2 9( 2 0 0 9). 28 10 “ obscene w i t h regard t o t h e com m u n i t y st an da rd an yw h ere i n t h e U n i t ed S tates.” B y m a k i n g th ese arg u m en ts, R u d za vice ch a l l en ge d h i s fa ctu a lgu i l t. 24 R udzavi c e a l so c oul d h ave avo i ded a f ul ltr i alby aski ng f

ora c ondi t i onal pl ea u n der F ederal R u l e of C ri m i n alP rocedure 11(a) ( 2) af t er t h e di st ri ctcourt rul ed on hi s c on st i t u t i on alan d ap pl i cabi l i t y argu m en t s and den i ed hi s m ot i on to d is m is s . T h is fu r th e r u n d e r m in e s R u d z a v ic e ’ s a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e o n ly

25
rea son h e w en t t o tri a lw a s to m a k e a co n sti tu ti on a lch a l l en ge to § 14 7 0 an d to cha l l en ge t h e app l i cabi l i t y of t h e st atute t o hi s c o n du ct
. U n der t h ese 26 ci rcum st an ces, w e w i l lnot di st u rb t h e d istr i ctcourt ’ s den i alof a redu ct i on f

or a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility
. V R u d z a v ic e a ls o a r g u e s t h a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d b y fa ilin gto e x p la in ad equ atel y i t s s en t en ce i n t erm s of t h e fact ors i n § 3553 ( a). R u d zavi ce never c hal l e nge d t he s e nt e nc e a s unr e as o nab l e i n t he di s t r i c t c o ur t o n t hi s b as i s , a nd t he r e f o r e w e re vi e w fo r pl ai n e r r o r o nl y. To e s t ab l i s h pl ai n e r r o r , t he a ppe l l ant 27
m usts how an er r ort hat i s c l earorob vi ous and thataf fec t s hi s subs t ant i al ri ght s. I f t he appel l ant m akes suc h a sho w i ng, w e have t he di sc r et i on to

28N o. 08- 10791

Id

. 29 5 5 1 U .S

. 3 3 8 , 3 5 8( 2 0 0 7). 30 Id

. 31 11 c o r r e c t t h e e r r o r o n ly if it s e r i o u s l y a ffe c ts th e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o r p u b lic repu t ati on of

j u di ci alproceedi n gs. 29 I n t hi s c as e , Rudza vi c e ’ s at t o r ne y ar gue d at l e ngt h dur i ng t he s e nt e nc i ng h e a r in gfo r a b e lo w -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e b a s e d o n th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) fa c to r s , in ad di t i on t o ha vi n g f

i l ed sen t en ci n g m em oran da ur g in g th e sam e. Th e di st ri ct
cou rt exp ress ly r e je cted the se a rg u m en ts, an d the n pr oce ed ed to an n ou n ce it s sen ten ci n g de ci sion a ft er R u d za vice d ecli n ed to m a k e a p erso n a lstatem en t. In
a d d itio n , t h e c o u r t’s w r itt e n s ta te m e n t o f r e a s o n s s ta te s th a t “ [t] h e s e n te n c e is
w ith in th e a d v is o r y g u id e lin e ra n g e , a n d th e co u r t fin d s n o re a s o n to d e p a r t.” I n R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , t h e defen da n t argu ed f or a bel ow - G u i del i n es sentence based on the § 355 3( a) fact ors. T h e S u prem e C ou rth el d that di st ri ct 30
c our t ’ s st at e m e nto f

r e a s o ns w as l egal l y s uf f i c i entw her e t he r ec or d r eve al ed t hat t he j udge l i st ened t o eac h of t he def endant ’ s ar gum ent s and st at ed s i m pl y t hat t he d i s t r i c tc o ur tf

o un d t he Gui del i nes s ent enc i ng r ange m or e “ appro pri at e” t han a senten ce b e l ow t h e G u i del i n es r an ge. Si m i l arl y, t h e di st ri ctcourthere 31 consi dered R u dza vi ce’ s argum en t s f or a l ow er s en t en ce, expressl y overrul ed t h em , an d st ated tha t the G u i del i n es ran ge w as m ore app ropri ate. Th e di st ri ct court’ s expl an ati on of i t s sentenci n g deci si on w as not pl ai n err or, an d i t di d n ot af fectR u dza vi ce’ s s u bstanti alri gh t s. * * * T h e r e fo r e , fo r th e re a so n s d is c u s s e d a b o v e , w e A F F I R M th e d is t r ic t c o u r t ’s j u d gm en t.