FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 23, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12805 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -003 36 -C R -1-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A RN O L D D . H O L L A N D , a .k .a . " m a n b o y 1 2 " , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 23, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A rnol d D . H ol l and app ea l s hi s s ent ence i m po se d aft erhe pl ed gu i l ty t o t enAl l c itatio ns areto t he20 02 vers ion

of theSentenc ingGuide lin e s. 1 The pa rties agreethat the plea agreement incorre ctly identified the re levant guidelines 2 provision as § 2G2.2(b) (3) a nd that appeal of the § 2G2.2(b) (4) enhancement was e x cepte d from the appe al waiver. 2 c o u n ts o f r e c e ip t o f

c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 A ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) . H ol l a nd’ s pl e a a gr e e m e ntc ont a i ne d a n appe a l w a i ve r , w hi c h the gove rnm e nt c o n te n d s b a r s ap p e a l o f a ll b u t o n e o f

H o lla n d ’s c la im s . T h u s , a s a th r e s h o ld m att er , w e a dd re ss the val i di ty a nd sc op e of H ol l and’ s app ea l w ai ver. A . A p p ealW ai ver I n h is p le a a g r e e m e n t, H o lla n d a g r e e d to w a iv e h is r ig h t to ap p e a l h is se nt ence on any groun d exceptfor a n u pw ar d d eparture or afi nd i ng by the di stri ct c our ttha ta f

i ve - l e ve l e nha nc e m e nt , pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 4) , appl i e d, 1 as fo l l o w s: T o the m a xi m um e xt e ntpe r m i tt e d by f e de r a l l a w , how e ve r , the d e f e n d a n t v o lu n ta r ily a n d e x p r e s s ly w a iv e s th e r ig h t to ap p e a l h is s e n te n c e a n d th e r ig h t to c o lla te r a lly a tta c k h is s e n te n c e in a n y p o s tconv i ct i on proceedi ng on any groun d, exce ptthatthe defendantm ay fi l e a d i rectap p eal o f an u p w ard d ep artu re fro m th e o th erw i se appl i cabl e s ent enci ng gu i del i ne ra ng e a nd / or a f i nd i ng by the tri al c o u r t th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t is s u b

je c t to a f

iv e - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 G 2. 2(b)[( 4)] , because the defendantengaged i n a patt ern o f a ct i vi ty i nv ol vi ng the se xu al abuse or e xp l oi t at i on of a m i no r. 2 I n hi s pl e a a gr e e m e nt , H ol l a nd a l s o s t i pul a t e d tha thi s gui de l i ne s r a nge s houl d be c a lc u la te d p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 G 2 .2 a n d th a t th e e n h a n c e m e n ts inWe rejec t as meritless Holland’s a rgument that the § 2G2.2 enha ncements constituted an 3 upward depar

ture a nd thus fall within the other exception to Holland’s appe al waiver. A depar ture by definition results in a sentenc e outside the a pplicable guidelines rang e. See United States v. Smi th, 289 F.3d 696, 710 (11th Cir. 2002). The§ 2G2.2 enha ncements Holland seeks to challeng e on appe al were used to c alculateHolland’s guidelines rang e, not to authorize a sentenc e outside that ra

ng e. 3 § 2 G 2 . 2 (b )(1 ), (b )(2 )(B ), (b )(3 ) an d (b )(5 ) ap p l i ed . H i s p l ea ag reem en tal so ac k n o w led g ed th at th e g o v er n m en t w o u ldar g u e a t sen ten cin g th at § 2 G 2 .2 (b )( 4 )’s f i ve - l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntappl i e d be c a us e H ol l a nd ha d e nga ge d i n qua l i f y i ng c o n d u c t. O n appe a l , H ol l a nd a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n a c c e pt i ng the s tip u la tio n in th e p le a a g r e e m e n t th a t U .S .S .G . § 2 G 2 .2 ap p lie d to c a lc u la te h is of f e ns e l e ve l a nd tha tthe s e e nha nc e m e nt s i n U . S . S . G . § 2G 2. 2 appl i e d: § 2 G 2 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) , ( b ) ( 3 ) a n d ( b ) ( 5 ) . H o lla n d c o n te n d s th a t U .S .S .G . § 2G 2. 4 i s the appl i cabl e gui del i nes provi si on for hi s off ense and thatthe di stri ct courterre d i n app l yi ng § 2 G 2. 2 and the enhancem ent s i n § 2G 2. 2(b)(1), (b)( 2)(B ), ( b) ( 3) a nd ( b) ( 5) . I f

e nf or c e abl e , H ol l a nd’ s appe a l w a i ve rpr e c l ude s r e vi e w of th ese cl ai m s. 3 A n app ea l w ai ver “ w i l l be enforce d i f the go vernm entdem on stra t es ei ther: ( 1) the di s tr i c tc our ts pe c i f i c a l l y que s t i one d the de f e nda ntaboutthe w a i ve rdur i ng th e p l ea co l l o q u y, o r (2 ) th e reco rd cl earl y sh o w s th atth e d efen d an to th erw i se u n d erst o o d th e fu l l si g n i fi can ce o f th e w ai v er. ” U n i t ed S t at es v . G ri n ard -H en ry,We reviewde novo the validity of an a ppeal waiver. United States v. B ushert, 997 F .2d 4 1343, 1352 (11th Cir. 1993). 4 3 9 9 F. 3 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . ) ( q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi tt e d ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 5 4 4 U . S. 10 41 , 12 5 S . C t . 22 79 (200 5). “ A w ai ver of the ri gh tt o app ea l i ncl ud es a w ai ver o f th e ri g h tt o ap p eal d i ffi cu l to r d eb at ab l e l eg al i ssu es –i n d eed , i ti n cl u d es a w a i ve rof

the r i ghtt o appe a l bl a t a nte rr or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H ow l e , 166 F . 3d 11 66 , 11 69 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). 4 H er e, the di stri ctcourtspec i fi ca l l y quest i on ed H ol l and abo utthe appeal w a i ve rdur i ng the pl e a c ol l oquy , a nd H ol l a nd s t a t e d tha the unde r s t ood the p ro v i si o n , as fo l l o w s: T he C our t : [ Y ] ou a r e w a i vi ng c e rt a i n appe a l r i ght s tha tnor m a l l y y ou

w ou l d h ave. W i th the except i on s not ed i n you r pl ea a gr e e m e nt , y ou a r e gi vi ng up tha tr i ght , w hi c h m e a ns y ou’ l l be bound by the j udge ’ s de c i s i on. D o y ou u n d e r s ta n d th a t? [ H ol l a nd] : Y e s , I unde r s t a nd I ’ l l be bound by y ourde c i s i on. T h e C o u r t: A n d y o u a r e a ls o g iv in g u p n o t o n ly y o u rr ig h t to ap p e a l,

b u t y o u rr ig h t to c o lla te r a lly a tta c k y o u rs e n te n c e a t a l at er d at e th ro u g h a h ab eas co rp u s o r so m e o th er p o st ju d g m e n t m e a n s . D o y o u u n d e r s ta n d th a t? [H ol l and] : Y es , Y ou r H on or.

. . . . T he C our t : I s the r e a ny thi ng I ha ve s a i d ora ny que s t i ons I ha ve

a s ke d tha ty ou do notunde r s t a nd ory ou w i s h m e t o go b ack o v er an d cl ari fy?Ordinarily, we review thedistrict court' s findings of fac t for cle ar error

and application 5 of the sentencingguidelines to the fac ts de novo. United States v. B ender , 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002). However, where , as here, the de fenda nt failed to objec t in the district court, we review only

for plain error . United States v. Mahique, 150 F .3d 1330, 1332 (11th Cir. 1998). 5 [H ol l and] : N o, you h ave s ai d every thi ng cl ea rl y, Y ou r H on or. T he C ou rt : D o you and you r a tt orney f ee l thatyou b oth h ave had s u f f ic ie n t tim e to th in k ab o u t a n d d is c u s s th e m a tte rf u lly am o n g yo u rsel v es b efo re en t eri n g th i s p l ea o f g u i l ty? [ H ol l a nd] : W e ha ve ha d e nough t i m e , a nd s he ’ s done a good j ob. B e c a us e H ol l a nd know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y e nt e r e d i nt o hi s appe a l w a i ve ra nd because the di stri ctcourtspec i fi ca l l y quest i on ed H ol l and abo utthe appeal w ai ver, the appe a l w a i ve ri s e nf or c e abl e . T he r e f

or e , w e do nota ddr e s s the m e r i t s of H ol l and’ s a rgum ent s r egar di ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s use of § 2 G 2. 2 and the (b)( 1), (b)( 2)(B ), (b)( 3) and (b)(5) enhancem ent s s t i pu l at ed t o i n h i s pl eaagre em ent , as o p p o s e d to § 2 G 2 .4 , to c a lc u la te h is o f f e n s e le v e l. B. U . S. S. G . § 2 G 2 . 2 ( b) ( 4 ) Enha nc e m e nt H ol l and al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n app l yi ng a f i ve-l evel e nha nc e m e ntpur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 4) , a c l a i m e xpr e s s l y pe r m i tt e d by H o lla n d ’s ap p e a l w a iv e r . U n d e r§ 2 G 2 .2 ( b ) ( 4 ) , a d e f e n d a n t’s o f

f e n s e le v e l is 5 in c r e a s e d b y f

iv e le v e ls “[ i]f

th e d e f e n d a n t e n g a g e d in a p a tte rn o f a c tiv ity i n v o l v i n g th e s e x u a l ab u s e o re x p l o i t a t i o n o f a m i n o r. . . . ” U. S . S . G.Holland’s only objection to the PSI ’s facts relating to the § 2G2.2(b)(4) enhanc ement 6 was to the c haracterization of one incident with JV-MM. Ac cordingto the PSI , JV-MM stated that Holland took a photograph of him as he exited the shower a nd then sexually

assaulted him. Acc ordingto Holland, the photograph w as g iven to him, not taken by him, and he never forced JV-MM to eng ag e in sexual activity . However, Holland did not object to the PSI ’s description of his other multiple sexual encounters with both JV-MM and JV-TG. Theref ore, even without theon einc ident to which H oll and ob je c te d, thereweresti ll s uf fi c ient s e xual enc ounterswith min or s tosatis fy

the§ 2 G2 .2 (b )(4) e nh anc e ment. 6 § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 4) . “ P a tt e rn of a c t i vi ty ” i s de f

i ne d i n A ppl i c a t i on N ot e 1 a s “ a ny com bi nat i on of tw o o r m ore s epar at e i nst ance s of the se xu al abuse or s exual e xpl oi t a t i on of

a m i norby the de f

e nda nt. . . . ” U . S . S . G . § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 4) c m t . n. 1. F ur the r m or e , “ s e xua l abus e ore xpl oi t a t i on” i s de f i ne d a s “ c onduc tc ons t i tut i ng cr i m i nal se xu al abuse of am i no r, se xu al expl oi t at i on of a m i no r, abusi ve se xu al cont ac tof a m i no r, any s i m i l aroffe nse und erst at e l aw , or an att em ptor conspi ra cy to c o m m it a n y o f

th e ab o v e o f

f e n s e s .” I d . H o lla n d ’s p r e s e n te n c e in v e s tig a tio n r e p o r t ( “P S I ” ) r e c o u n te d s p e c if ic f a c ts re l at i ng t o the § 2 G 2. 2(b)(4) enhancemen t . T hi s port i on of the P S I des cr i bed H ol l a nd’ s ongoi ng s e xua l r e l a t i ons hi ps w i th tw o f i f t e e n y e a rol d boy s , J V - M M a nd J V - T G . T he P S I c ont a i ne d de s c r i pt i ons of , a nd e xc e rpt s f

r om , a c a l e nda ra nd di a r i e s ke ptby H ol l a nd a s w e l l a s l e tt e r s w r i tt e n by H ol l a nd i n w hi c h he doc um e nt e d m ul t i pl e s e xua l e nc ount e r s w i th J V - M M a nd J V - T G . H ol l a nd di d not o b je c t to th e s e f

a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s in th e P S I , a n d th u s th e y a r e d e e m e d a d m itte d . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. W ade, 45 8 F . 3d 12 73 , 12 77 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). 67

A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e tha tH ol l a nd h ad sex u al co n t actw i th atl eastfi v e m i n o rs an d t o o k n u d e p h o t o g rap h s o f atl east one of the m a nd pos t e d the m on hi s w e bs i t e . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the gove rnm e nt in tr o d u c e d s e x u a lly e x p lic it im a g e s o f m in o r s f o u n d o n H o lla n d ’s c o m p u te r , h is w e bs i t e a nd on f

i l m i n hi s c a m e r a ; m ul t i pl e e - m a i l s s e ntby H ol l a nd t o m i nor s a nd to an ad u ltin w h ich h e a d m itted en g ag in g in se x u al co n tact w ith m in o rs ; H o ll an d ’s c a l e nda ra nd di a r i e s ; a nd a n or ga ni z e rf ound on H ol l a nd’ s r e f

r i ge r a t orc ont a i ni ng n o t at i o n s i n d i cat i n g th atH o l l an d h ad en g ag ed i n sex u al co n t actw i th m i n o rs. T hi s e vi de nc e i s m or e tha n s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha tH ol l a nd e nga ge d i n a pa tt e rn of a c t i vi ty i nvol vi ng the s e xua l abus e or e x p lo ita tio n o f

a m in o r . H o lla n d ’s d ia r ie s , o r g a n iz e r , c a le n d a re n tr ie s a n d e - m a ils re coun tm ul t i pl e, se para t e i nst ance s of s exual abuse or s exual expl oi t at i on of at le a s t f iv e m in o r s . H o lla n d ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e c o n s titu te d in a d m is s ib le hear sa y i s w i tho utm er i t . F i rs t , the F eder al R ul es of E vi dence do n otappl y a t se nt enci ng . F ed. R . E vi d. 11 01 (d)( 3). R ather, the se nt enci ng courtm ayconsi der he a r s a y e vi de nc e tha tha s s uf f i c i e nti ndi c i a of

r e l i abi l i ty . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A nde r t on, 136 F . 3d 747, 751 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ; U . S . S . G . § 6A 1. 3( a ) . T he s ta te m e n ts b y J V - M M a n d J V - T G th a t th e y h a d m u ltip le s e x u a l c o n ta c ts w ith8

H ol l and are c orrobo ra t ed by H ol l and’ s ow n st at em ent s i n h i s di ar i es , organi ze r, c a le n d a ra n d e - m a ils . H o lla n d h a s f a ile d to s h o w th a t th is e v id e n c e is u n r e liab le . S ec on d, the st at em ent s i n the di ar i es , organi ze r, ca l endar and e-mai l s c on st i tut ed a dm i s s i ons by a pa r ty a nd the r e f or e w e r e non- he a r s a y . S e e F e d. R . E vi d. 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) . E qu al l y m er i t l es s i s H ol l and’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed re vers i bl e e rr or w hen i tfa i l ed t o m ake s peci fi c f i nd i ng s t o sup po rtthe § 2G 2. 2(b)(4) enhancemen t . T he di stri ctcourtexpl i ci t l y f ou nd “ by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence the defendantengaged i n a patt ern o f a ct i vi ty i nv ol vi ng se xu al abus e a nd e xpl oi t a t i on of a m i nor ” a nd tha tH ol l a nd’ s c onduc ti nvol ve d “ f i ve d if f e r e n t v ic tim s , a n d th a t th e s a m e v ic tim w a s in v o lv e d m o r e th a n o n e tim e in som e i nst ance s. ” A s the re cord am pl y s up po rt s the di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i ca t i on of § 2G 2. 2(b)(4)’ s e nh ance m ent , m ore i nd i vi du al i ze d fi nd i ng s w er e notre qu i re d. S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M or i a r ty , 429 F . 3d 1012, 1022 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( a f f i r m i ng the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of a § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 4) w i thoutpa r t i c ul a r i z e d f i ndi ngs b e c a u s e r e c o r d s u p p o r te d d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e te r m in a tio n ) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otcom m i tpl ai n err or w hen i tappl i ed the fi ve-l evel enhancem enti n U . S . S . G . § 2 G 2. 2(b)(4). AF F I RME D.