NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 11a0153n.06 No. 09-6557 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. MI CH AE LTO DD HU B ER, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O N A PP E A LF RO M T H E U N I TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI S T RI CT OF TENNESSEE

B e fo re : B OG GS, GR I F F I N, and KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s.
KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e . M e mph is p oli c e se arc he d M ic ha e l H ub er’ s h ou se a ft e r h is neig hbor’s thre e-y ear -old daug hter a ccuse d him of sexually mole sting he r. They

seized Huber’ s
c omp ute r a

nd fo un d o ve r 6 00 vis ua l dep ic tio ns of c hil d por no g ra ph y . Hu be r ult imate ly

ple d guil ty to two counts of knowing rec eipt of child pornog raphy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), a nd one count of

knowing possession of child pornog raphy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)( B)
. At the s entenc ing hear ing, the district court allowe d Huber ’s neig hbor to testify over H uber’ s objection. The ne ighbor

descr ibed Huber ’s conduc t with h i s d au gh t er and said he had hea rd that Huber had ra ped anothe r y oung g irl. Huber obje cted to this testimony as hearsay
. The district cour t
overr uled the objection, but sa id it would not consider any hear say in determining Huber ’s sentenc e.No. 09-6557

United States v. Hube r

-2- The Guide lines rang e for

Huber ’s sentenc e was 210 to 260 months’ imprisonment. Huber argued that he should re ceive a below- Guidelines sentenc e in light of his lack of c riminal history and a psy cholog ist’s opinion t hat he was u n likely to rec idivate. The district c ourt disag ree d and sentenc ed him to 210 months for each of the receipt-of -pornog raphy counts and 120 months for the possession count, all to be serve d concur rently . Huber

broug ht this appeal. Huber first argues that his se ntence is substantively unrea sonable. We pr esume the contra ry since his sentenc e is within the Guidelines rang e. See U nited States v. Vonner , 516 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (e n banc)
. Huber tries to overc ome this presumption by noting that he has no criminal history and that his se ntence is only thirty months short of the statutory maxi mum. See 18 U. S.C. § 2 25 2( b) (1 ). B ut Hu be r’ s se nte nc e is c los e to t he ma ximumbe c a

us e he re c e ive d mu lti ple
e nh a nc e m e n t s u n d e r t h e G u i d e l i n e s . A n d t h e r e a s o n h e r e c e i v e d t h o s e e n h an c e m e n t s i s tha t hi s
c o n d u c tw a s p art i c u l ar l y v i l e . A m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , h e h a d o v e r 6 0 0 i m a g e s o f c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y, with some of the imag es involving sa domasochism, and some portr aying c hildren under the ag e of 12. See U. S.S. G. § 2 G2 .2 . H ub e r’ s argume nt i s me ri tle ss. Huber next arg ues that the district cour t showed too much defere nce to the Guidelines. But the c ourt e xpre ssl y no te d that the Gu ide lin e s we re a dv iso ry and e xpla ine d why th e 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s su pp or te d a se nte nc e of 21 0 mon ths
. So tha t argume nt is me ri tle ss. Th e same is t r u e f o r h i s ar g u m e n tt h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u rta s s i g n e d t o o m u c h w e i g h tt o t h e n e i g hb o r ’ s t e s t i m o n y. The c ourt had broa d dis cr et i o n t o co nsider evide nce f or the purpose s of Huber ’s sentenc ing. See Roberts v. United States , 445 U.S. 552, 556 (1980). We see no abuse of that discretion her e.No. 09-6557

United States v. Hube r

-3- Hu be r a lso argue s th a t hi s se nte nc e amo un ts to mor e tha n o ne punis hme nt f

or the same of fe ns e , th e re by

vio latin g the Do ub le Jeop ard y Cla us e of the F if

th A me ndme nt. He fa ile d to ra ise this challeng e below, so w e re view it for plain error
. See U nited States v. Branham , 97 F.3d 835, 841-42 (6th Cir. 1996). The Double J eopar dy Clause “prohibits multipl e punishments for the same criminal ac t or transac tion.” United State s v. Gr aham , 275 F.3d 490, 519 ( 6th Cir. 2001). Here , Huber rec eived a sepa rate sentenc e for

eac h count. Count 1 of the indictment char g ed that, on June 1, 2007, Huber
rec eived thre e speci fi c v i deos depic ting c hild pornog raphy . Count 2 charg ed that Hube r re ceive d two differ ent vi deos on J une 2, 2007. Count 3 charg ed Hube r with possessing a computer and a ha rd drive c ontaining ove r 600 depic tions of child pornog raphy on J une 29, 2007. Counts 1 and 2 involved differ ent depictions, so t hey do not conce rn a sing le ac t or transac tion. Count 3 included the depictions on which C ounts 1 and 2 we re ba sed, but also included 600 or so other de pictions. Under these circ umstances, it was not plain e rror for the district c ourt to tr eat the c onduct alleg ed in ea ch count a s a diffe rent tra nsaction. We likewise see no plain err or with respec t to Huber’s a rg ument under Bryan v. U nited States , 721 F.2d 572 ( 6th Cir. 1983). The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.