FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 30, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 83 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 00 98 -WSD-RGV-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us GREGORY TODD BOWDEN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 30 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, W ILSON an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:Afte r a jury tri al , Greg ory Bo wde n app eal s h is co nv ic ti on an d 2 50 -m on th se nt en ce fo r at te m

pt in g t o e nt ic e a m in orto en ga ge insex ua l ac ti vi ty, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) . After r ev ie w, we affi rm .

I. BACKG ROUND FACTS InOcto be r 20 08 , an a ge ntwith aFed eral Bu reauof I nv es ti ga ti on (“ FBI” ) ta skfor ce en co un te redBo wde n i n a n i nt ern etch atroo m . The FB I ag en t p os edas

“ Tiff an y ,” th e m ot he r of

“ St ep ha ni e,” a s ev en -y ear o ldgi rl. Aft er co m m un ic at in g ab ou t the ir p ers on al li ve s, i nc lu di ng de ta il s o f th ei r al le ge d s ex ua l ex pe rie nc es , Bo wde n t ol d “ Tiff

an y ” h e was in te res te d i n asex ua l re la ti on sh ip with am ot he r an d h er d au gh te r an d g av e Tiff an y hi s email a dd res s. Inearl y Feb ru ary 20 09 , “ Tiff

an y ” an d B owd enbe ga n c ha tt in g o nl in e ab ou t arra ng in g am eet in g. Bo wde n l iv edinMac on , Geor gi a. Bo wde n a rran ge d t o m eet Tiff an y an d S te ph an ie on Feb ru ary 11 , 20 09 at ares taur an t i n S an dy Spri ng s, Geo rg iaan d t he n g o t o Ti ffan y ’s apa rtment t o e ng ag e in gro up sex ua l ac ti vi ti es . Inhi s co m

m un ic at io ns with Ti ffan y , Bowd ento okst ep s t o e ns ur e Tiff an y un de rs to odth athe want edSte ph an ie to pa rti ci pa te , th atTiffany hadsp ok ento

2St ep ha ni e ab ou t wh atwou ldhapp enan d t ha t Ti ffan y wou ldpu rch as e “ lube ” fo r hi m to us e wit h S te ph an ie . 1 On Fe brua ry

11 , 20 09 , law en fo rcem en t arres te d B owd enwhen he pa rk edin th e p ark in g l otof t he ag reed -upo n re st au ran t. Aft er h is arre st , Bowd enadm it te d freque nt in g o nl in e ch atroo m s u si ng th e sc reen na m e u ti li zedin th e co m m un ic at io ns with Ti ffan y . Howev er, Bo wde n m ai nt ai ne d t ha t h e d idso to en joy tab oo subjec ts , rol e-p la y in g a ndha vi ng sex with a du lt s wh o p ret en de d t o b e m in or s. A subs eque ntsea rch rev eal edch il d p orno gr ap hy onBo wde n’s co m pu te r. Befo re tria l, Bo wde n m ov edto di sm is s t he in di ct m en t, ar gu in g t ha t: (1) 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) di d n otco ve r hi s co nduc t b ecau se he co m m un ic at edwith a n in te rm ed ia ry , th e p ur

po rte d p aren t o f a m in or , rathe r th andi rect ly w ith am in or ; (2 ) th e d oc tri ne of l eg al im po ss ib il it y

pre cl ud edhi s p ro se cu ti on be cau se no actua l m in orwas i nv ol ve d; an d (3 ) as di sc us si on s o f se xu al fan ta si es be twee n a du lt s, h is co m m un ic at io ns with Ti ffan y

were p ro te ct edby the Fir stAm en dm en t. On Au gu st19 , 20 09 , a m ag is tra te jud ge en te reda rep ort an d reco m m en da ti on (“ R&R ”) tha t re co m m en de d d en y in g t he m ot io n. Th e R&R At the time of his arr est, Bow den wor ked as a Deputy Sheriff at the Bibb County 1 Sheriff’ s Offic e. I

n an instant messag e, B owden a sked Tiffa ny whether she wa s a law enfor ceme nt office r and, when she r eassur ed him that she wa s not, Bowde n stated, “Just discussing it with you if you are a cop is ba d, but to show up is worse.” In a communication the morningof F ebrua

ry 11, 2009, Bow den told Tiffa ny he wa s “ner

vous, excited, and did not want to go to jail.” 3co nc lu de d t ha t El ev en th Cir cu itpre ced en t fo recl os edBo wde n’s fi rs t t wo

arg um en ts an d t ha t t he Fir stAm en dm en t d idno t p ro te ctBo wde n’s co m m un ic at io ns with Ti ffan y . The R& R ad vi se d the pa rti es th at , pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 6 36 (b )(1 ), th ey

ha d t enda y s t o fi le ob

jecti on s. Afterne it he r pa rty

2 ob jecte d t o t he m ag is tra te ’s rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on , onOcto be r 2, 2 00 9, t he di st ric t co urt ad op te d i t an d d en ie d B owd en ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s t he in di ctm en t. The di st ric t co urt ag reedwith t he R&R t ha t Bo wde n’s thi rd -p art y in te rm ed ia ry an d l eg al im

po ss ib il it y

arg um en ts were fo recl os edby E le ve nt h C irc ui t p rece de nt an d t ha t, u nd er Supr em e Co urt p rece de nt , Bowd en ’s comm un ic at io ns with Ti ffan y to arra ng e th e se xu al ab us e o f a ch il d wer e n otpro te ct edby the Fir stAm en dm en t. Fo ll owi ng a th ree- da y

tri al , a jury co nv ic te d B owd enof v io la ti ng § 2 42 2( b) . The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ) rec omm en de d: (1) a ba se off en se le ve l o f 28 , purs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (a)( 3) ; (2 ) a two- le ve l i nc reas e, pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(3 ), be cau se Bo wde n’s o ffen se in vo lv edth e u se of a co m pu te r; ( 3) aneig ht -le ve l i nc reas e, pu rs uantto U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(5 ), be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv eda m in or un de r th e ag e o f twe lv e; an d (4 ) a two- le ve l i nc reas e fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 , bec au se Bo wde n Effe ctive De cembe r 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. § 636 was amended to provide fourtee n day s, 2 rathe r than ten, to objec t to a mag istrate judg e’s r ecommendation. See Statutory Time-Periods Tec hnical Amendme nts Act of 2009, Pub. L . No. 111-16, § 6(1), 123 Stat. 1608 (2009). 4co m

m it te d p erjury

at tria l. Witha to ta l o ffen se lev el of 4 0, an d acri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I , th e PSI r eco m

m en de d a n a dv is ory

gu id el in es ran ge of 2 92 to 36 5 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Bo wde n fi le d wri tt enob

jecti on s t o t he th ree o ffen se lev el enhanc em en ts . Bo wde n d idno t o bjec t t o t he PSI’s fac tu al st at em en ts . At s en te nc in g, t he di st ric t co urt o ve rru le d B owd en ’s ob jecti on s an d app li ed th e PSI’s g ui de li ne s ca lc ul at io ns , whi ch y ie ld edanadvi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of 24 2 t o 3 65 m on th s. Bo wde n a sk edfora 12 0- m on th sen te nc e, th e st atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um . After B owd enpe rs on al ly addres se d t he co urt, the di st ric t co urt i m po se d a25 0- m on thsen te nc e. Bo wde n app eal ed .

II . DISCUSSI ON A. Mot io n to Dis m is s th e In di ctment On ap pe al , Bowd ensee ks to ch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o d is m is s t he in di ct m en t. Sp eci fic al ly, Bo wde n re as se rts th athe can no t b e pr os ecu te d fo r vi ol at in g § 24 22 (b ) be cau se : (1 ) he co m m un ic at edwith a n in te rm ed ia ry , who in turnin du ceda m in orto en ga ge in sex ua l co nduc t; an d (2 ) th os e co m

m un ic at io ns are p ro te ct edby the Fir stAm en dm en t. Howev er, u nd er 3 Although B owden’ s appellate brief lists in the statement of the issues “ [w] hether the 3 District Court erre d by

rulingthat an ac tual minor child is not required f or 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) to apply ,” the brief off

ers no substantive a

rgument or citation to leg al authority as to this issue. 5Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 5 9( b) (2 ), Bo wde n wai ve d t he se ch al le ng es

be cau se he fai le d t o o bjec t t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge ’s R&R. Und er Ru le 59 (b )(2 ), a p art y waiv es th e ri gh t t o re vi ew of a cl ai m if h e d oe s no t fi le “ sp eci fic writ te n o bjec ti on s” withi n the ti m e se t b y th e co urt o r wit hi n fo urte enda y s o f be in g s erv edwith the rep ort an d re co m m en da ti on . Fed . R. Cri m . P. 59 (b )(2 ). W ai ve d c la im s ar e n otrev ie wedforpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Lewis , 49 2 F .3d12 19 , 12 21 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (en ba nc ). Bo wde n d idno t fi le an y

writ te n o bjec ti on s wi th in th e te n- da y pe rio d s etby th e co urt. The refo re Bo wde n h as waiv edap pe ll at e rev ie w of t he de ni al of h is m ot io n t o d is m is s t he in di ct m en t. W e n ot e th atth e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s R&R e rro ne ou sl y advi se d the pa rti es th atth e fai lu re t o o bjec t wo ul d re su ltin pl ai n e rro r rev ie w on ap pe al . Howev er, ev enif we re vi ewedforpl ai n e rro r, we wou ldaffi rm . Bot h o f Bo wde n’s arg um en ts on ap pe al are fo recl os edby thi s C irc ui t’s p rece de nt . See Un it edSta te s v. M urrel l, 3 68 F.3d12 83 , 12 86 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (co nc lu di ng th atne go ti at in g wi th Acc ording ly , Bow den has a bandoned it. See F ed. R. App. P. 28(a) (9)( A); United States v. J ernig an, 341 F .3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003) (e x plaining that an issue was a bandoned wher e the de fenda

nt’s brief ma de only

“passingref

ere nces” to the issue). In any event, ther e is no err or with reg ard to this issue. See United States v. Rothenberg , 610 F.3d 621, 626 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (“ It is . . . the clearly established law of

the circ uit that to prove an a ttempted exploi tation offe nse under

18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), the Gove rnment does not have to prove the e x istence or identity of a spe cific minor victim; a fic titious minor will suffice so longas the de fenda nt understood and be lieved that a minor w as involved.”) . 6th e p ur

po rte d fa th er o f a m in orfal ls withi n t he pu rv ie w of § 24 22 (b ) an d re jecti ng arg um en t t ha t a § 24 22 (b ) de fen da ntm us t co m m un ic at e d ire ct ly w it h t he m in oror supp os edm in or ); Un it edSta te s v . Lee, 60 3 F .3d90 4, 9 12 -1 3 (1 1t h C ir.) (rel y in g on Mu rrel l t o e xp la in th ata de fen dantm ay be co nv ic te d u nd er § 24 22 (b ) “ ev en th ou gh he co m

m un ic at edon ly w it h a n a du ltin te rm ed ia ry ”), cert. d en ie d, 1 31 S. Ct . 43 7 (2 01 0) ; Un it edSta te s v . Horn day , 39 2 F .3d13 06 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (rejec ti ng arg um en t t ha t ap pl y in g § 24 22 (b ) to co nduc t o f en ga gi ng in co nv ers at io ns with a n u nd erco ve r po li ce o ffi cer p os in g a s a 1 3- y ear- ol d m in or vi ol at edde fen da nt ’s Firs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts an d e xp la in in g t ha t “ [s ]peech at te m pt in g t o a rran ge th e se xu al ab us e o f ch il dr enis no m or e co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect edth ansp eech att em pt in g t o a rran ge an y

ot he r type o f cri m e”). B. Sect io n 3 G1 .3(b )(3 )(A) En ha ncement Pu rs uantto U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(3 )(A), a d efen da nt ’s off en se lev el is in crea se d b y

two lev el s “ [i]f th e o ffen se in vo lv edth e u se of aco m pu te r oran in te ract iv e co m

pu te r se rv ic e to . . . pe rs ua de , in du ce, en ti ce, co erce , or fa ci li ta te th e tr av el of, t he m in orto en ga ge in pro hi bi te d s ex ua l co nduc t . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(3 )(A). Thi s en ha nc em en t “ is in te nd edto ap pl y on ly to t he us e o f a co m pu te r oranin te ract iv e co m pu te r se rv ic e to co m

m un ic at e d ire ct ly w it h am in or

7orwith ape rs on who ex erci se s cu st od y , care, o r supe rv is ory co nt ro l o f th e m in or .” U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 cm

t. n .4. 4 On ap pe al , Bowd endo es no t d is pu te th athe co m m un ic at edby e-m ai l wi th anun de rco ve r FBI a ge ntin ord er t o a rran ge for sex ua l re la ti on s wi th a fi ct it io us se ve n- y ear- ol d g irl . As Bo wde n a ckno wled ge s, thi s C ou rt h as affi rm edth e ap pl ic at io n o f § 2 G1.3 (b )(3 )’s two -le ve l en ha nc em en t wh ere t he de fen da ntus eda co m pu te r to co m

m un ic at e wit h a n u nd erco ve r po li ce o ffi cer i n a n e ffo rt t o g ai n acce ss to m in or s wi th whi ch to en ga ge in sex ua l co nduc t. See , e.g., Un it edSta te s v. Van ce, 4 94 F.3dF.3d98 5, 9 96 -9 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . To th e ex te ntBo wde n a sk s us to reco ns id er o ur

earl ie r pa ne l o pi ni on , we can no t d o s o. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Arch er, 5 31 F.3d13 47 , 13 52 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (“ [A] prio r pa ne l’s h ol di ng is bi nd in g o n a ll subs eque ntpane ls un le ss an d u nt il itis ov erru le d o r un de rm in edto th e p oi ntof abr og at io n b y th e Supr em e Co urt o r th is Co urt s it ti ng enba nc .”). Bo wde n a rg ue s t ha t h is co m pu te r us e is no t a p ro pe r “ sp eci fic off en se ch arac te ris ti c” u nd er the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es be cau se itwas n eces sa ry to es tabl is h fe de ral juri sd ic ti on an d d oe s n otdi st in gu is h h is off en se fro m ot he r § 2 42 2( b) vi ol at io ns . See U.S.S.G. ch . 1, p t. A.3 (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e Sen te nc in g We reviewthe district court’s a pplication of the Sentenc ing Guidelines de novo a nd its 4 fac tual finding s for c lear

err or. United States v. Kinar d, 472 F.3d 1294, 1297 n.3 ( 11th Cir. 2006). 8Co m

m is si on to okan“ em

pi ric al ap pr oa ch ” to dra win g d is ti nc ti on s among off en se an d o ffen de r ch arac te ris ti cs ). Bo wde n p ro vi de s n o aut ho rit y to supp ort h is cla im

th atth e d is tri ctco urt m ay di sr eg arda sp eci fic off

en se en ha nc em en t und er the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ba se d o n apo li cy

di sa gr eem en t. Alt ho ug h t he Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es are advi so ry aft er Un it edSta te s v . Boo ke r, 54 3 U.S. 2 20 , 12 5 S . Ct. 7 38 (20 05 ), th e d is tri ct co urt s ti ll m

us t ca lc ul at e th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge co rrec tl y . See Un it ed St at es v. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). 5 Inan y ev en t, Bo wde n’s ar gu m en t i s m eri tl es s. Bo wde n’s u se of a n In te rn et co nn ect edco m

pu te r was su ffi ci en t, b utno t n eces sa ry , to est ab li sh § 2 42 2( b) ’s juri sd ic ti on al co m

po ne nt . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 22 (b ) (p ro vi di ng th atjuri sd ic ti on is es tabl is he d wh enth e d efen da ntus es th e “ m ai l o r an y faci li ty or m ean s o f in te rs ta te orfor ei gn co m

m erce ”). Thu s, Bo wde n’s co m pu te r us e n oton ly establ is he d

Bow den argues only

that the district court c alculate d his advisory guidelines rang e 5 incorre ctly . He doe s not argue that his 250-month sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable or that the district court should have g iven him a downwa rd variance from the c orre ctly calc ulated advisory guidelines rang e. Cf. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 96-97, 109-10, 128 S. Ct. 558, 567, 575 (2007) (conc luding that the la ck of e mpirical data to support, and disagree ment with, the SentencingGuidelines’s 100:1 sentenc ing r atio for c rac k and powde r coc aine of fense s was one fac tor district courts could c onsider in dec iding whe ther to var y downwar d from the advisory guidelines rang e). While Kimbrough indicates that, unde r ce rtain circ umstances, a district court may

vary from the a dvisory

guidelines rang e base d on a policy disagree ment with a specific guidelines provision, it did notsug g est that the district court c ould disreg ard the guidelines provision in calculating the a pplicable guidelines rang e. 9fed eral juri sd ic ti on , itals o d is ti ng ui sh edhi s o ffen se fro m a ran ge of p ot en ti al § 2 42 2( b) vi ol at io ns . The Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on ’s dec is io n t o i m

po se a two le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r th is sp eci fic form of t he off

en se refl ect s i ts jud gm en t t ha t th e u se of aco m

pu te r, as op po se d t o atel ep ho ne or t he m ai l, i s a m or e p ern ic io us fo rm of e xp lo it at io n t ha t, as th e d is tri ctco urt n ot ed , rai se s d an ge rs th atm ay no t b e pr es en t t hr ou gh ot he r m ed iu m s. We fin d n o e rro r in th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n of § 2 G1.3 (b )(3 )(A)’s two- le ve l en ha nc em en t. C. Sect io n 2 G1 .3(b )(5 ) Enha ncement Und er U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(5 ), a d efen da nt ’s off en se lev el is in crea se d b y ei gh t l ev el s i f “ th e o ffen se in vo lv eda m in orwho ha d n otatt ai ne d t he ag e o f 12 y ears .” U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(5 ). A “ m in or ,” is de fin ed , inpart, a s “ anin di vi du al , whe th er fi ct it io us or n ot , who a la w enf or cem en t o ffi cer r ep res en te d t o a pa rti ci pa nt(i) ha d n otatt ai ne d t he ag e o f 18 y ears , and(ii ) co ul d b e p ro vi de d fo r th e p ur po se s o f en ga gi ng in sex ua ll y ex pl ic itco nduc t . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 2G1 .3 cmt. n .1. Bo wde n a rg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin ap pl y in g t he eig ht -le ve l en ha nc em en t b ecau se th e und er-t welv e th res ho ldis arb it rary andun supp orte d b y em pi ric al ev id en ce. Aga in , Bowd endo es no t ci te an y au th or it y supp orti ng hi s

10co nt en ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt m ay de cl in e to ap pl y

a sp eci fic off

en se en ha nc em en t b as edona po li cy di sa gr eem en t wi th th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es . Fu rth erm or e, Bo wde n h as no t s ho wn t ha t t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ’s li ne -drawi ng in§ 2 G1.3 (b )(5 ) is arb it rary. The eig ht -le ve l en ha nc em en t re fle ct s th e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ’s jud gm en t t ha t a s ex off en se co ve redby § 2G1 .3 t ha t in vo lv es a ch il d u nd er the ag e o f twe lv e, ev ena fi ct it io us on e, is m or e se rio us . As th e g ov ern m en t n ot es , chi ld ren un de r th e ag e o f twe lv e g en eral ly are reg ard edas pr e-p ub es cen t, an d t o d raw the li ne be twee n p re- a ndpo st -p ub es cen t m in or s i s n ot arb it rary. See, e.g ., 18 U.S.C. § 2 24 1( c) (i m po si ng a hi gh er m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce i f a d efen danttra ve ls acro ss st at e li ne s t o e ng ag e in sex with am in or un de r th e ag e o f twe lv e); 18 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( c) (d oubl in g t he st atut ory m ax im um se nt en ce i f th e se xu al co nt actis with ach il d u nd er the ag e o f twe lv e). Bo wde n d oe s n otdi sp ut e th athi s § 24 22 (b ) of fen se in vo lv eda fi ct it io us se ve n- y ear- ol d g irl who m Bo wde n was trying to m eetforth e p ur po se of e ng ag in g in sex ua ll y

ex pl ic itco nduc t wi th he r. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err in ap pl y in g t he § 2 G1.3 (b )(5 ) ei gh t-l ev el en hanc em en t. AFFIRMED.

11