N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M ATTHIAS HADDOC K, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10686

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-00112-LRHVPC -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 20, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B UC KLO, Se nior Distric t Judge . ** M atthia s Ha ddoc k (Ha ddoc k) a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s se nte nc e of 210 m onths’ im

prisonm e nt pre m ise d on Ha ddoc k’ s guilty ple a to one c ount of re c e ipt of c hild pornogra

phy in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(a)(2). Ha ddoc k c onte nds



# FIL E D MAR 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Ela ine E. B uc k lo, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa t ion.that

the distric t c ourt e rre d in inc re a sing his ba se offe nse le v e l pursua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) due to Ha ddoc k’ s “patte rn of a c tivity involving the

se xua l a b use or e xploita t ion of a m inor.” Ha ddoc k a lso a s se rts tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in im posing them andatory

m i nim um se nte nc e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(b)(1) a nd in a dm itting the

ora l a n d writte n sta

te m e n ts of Ha ddoc k’ s da

ughte r c onc e rning Ha ddoc k’ s se xua l a

buse . The distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t Ha ddoc k “ e nga ge d in two or more insta nc e s of se xua l a

buse ” of his da

ughte r wa s not c le arly

e rrone ous, a s it suffic ie ntly c onside re d the doc um e n ts submitte d by Ha ddoc k. The distric t c ourt thus properly a pplie d U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) ba se d on the pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e re late d to Ha ddoc k’ s m ole sta

tion of his da

ughte r. Se e Unite d State

s v . W illiamson , 439 F.3d 1125, 1140 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding tha t the distric t c ourt m ay

c onside r unc ha rge d c onduc t in a sc e rta ining whe t he r U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 a

pplie s ). W e ne e d not a

n d do not a ddre ss Ha d doc k ’ s c h a lle nge to the distric t c ourt’ s ruling tha t his sta te c onvic tion qua lifie d a s a pre dic ate offe nse unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(b)(1). The distric t c ourt c orre c tly c a lc ulat e d a

se nte n c ing guide line s ra

nge of 188 to 235 months’ im prisonm e nt a

nd a rtic u late d tha

t it would ha

ve se nte nc e d Ha ddoc k to 210 months’ im prisonm e nt irre spe c tive of the m andatory m inim um se nte nc e . S

e e Unite d State

s v . Ev ans-Martine

z , 611 F.3d 635, 645 (9th C ir. 2010). 2The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in a dm itting the ora l a nd writte n sta te m e nts of Ha d doc k ’ s da

ughte r at the fina l se nte nc ing he aring. S e e Unite d State s v . C hriste nse n , 732 F.3d 1094, 1102 (9th C i r. 2013) (a rtic ulating tha

t

“ a se nte n c ing judgem ay

a ppropria te ly c onduc t a

n inquiry broa d in sc ope , la

rge ly unlim ite d e ithe r a s to the kind of inform at ion he m ay c o nside r, or the sourc e from whic h it m ay

c om e ” ) (c ita

tion omitte d). AFFIRM E D.

3