NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 10 a0609n .06 No . 09- 3482 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. JOH N J. DO BR OW OLSKI , Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE U NITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COUR T FOR T HE NO RTH ER N DI STRIC T OF OH IO

Before: DAUGHT REY, GILMAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
PER C UR IA M. In this sent encin g app eal, defend ant Joh n P

. Do b row olski chal len g es the tw o ten -y ears e n tences impos ed by the dis tr ict c our

t foll ow ing hi s g uil ty ple as to on e c ount of coerci on and e n ti ce m e n t o f a mi nor to eng ag e i n i ll ic itse x ual condu ct, i n v iol ati on of 18 U .S.C . § 2422( b) , and one countof trav eling in int ersta te
com me rce w ith the inten t to en gage i n illici t sexual condu ct, in v iola t io n of 18 U.S.C. § 2423( b) . Dobrow ols ki contends that the mandato ry -mi nimum s entenc es re q uired unde r thes e s tatut es v iol ate b oth the Ei g hth Amendment ri g ht t o be free from cr uel and unusu al puni shmentand the p ri nci ple of separati on of p o wers. W e find no rev ersi ble er ro r and affi r m.No. 09- 3482

United State s v. Dobrowolski

- 2 - Beg inn ing i n ear ly

Se p te mber 2006, Dob ro w ols ki , a 62- y ear-o ld Con nect ic ut
re si dent, i nit iat ed c ommunic ati on th ro ug h an Inter net chat room w it h an ind iv idu al w ho he bel iev ed w as a 14- y ear-o ld Ohi o g ir l named “ Brandee,” but w ho w as, i n fact, an u ndercov er law enforc ement officer

. In the t hree w e e ks f o llo wi ng hi s i nit ial co ntac t w it h “ Brandee,” Dob ro w ol s k i c o n t i n u e d t o c o n t a c t h e r t h ro u g h e - ma i l a n d i n s t a n t me s s a g i n g , a s w e ll as on c e s pe ak i ng t o he r

on t he t el ep ho ne . Th e na tu re of t he s e c om mu ni c at i on s b ec am e inc re asi ng ly

i nti mate, and Dob ro w ols ki ex press ed his des ire to eng ag e i n s ex ual ac ti v it ies
w it h “ Brandee” and his i ntent ion to trav el to her hometow n i n order

to do s o. After final iz ing his pl ans to meether , D obrow ols ki drov e to thei r predeter mined meeti ng pla ce, w here he
w as arre ste d. At t he ti me of his ar re st, the pol ic e found pi eces of tw ine , han dcuffs, l eg irons, a w hip, a digi tal cam era, a p ortab le printer, an d a c o lo r p h o to of “Brande e” in his poss ess ion

. At h is ple a hear ing , Dob ro w ols ki w as infor med of the s tatut or il y mandate d mi nimum sent ences as soc iat ed w it h the ch arg es ag ain st him, as w ell as of the d is tr ict cour t’ s i nabi li ty to reduce thes e mi nimums furth er . D obrow ols ki nev erthel ess pl eaded g uil ty to both ch a rge s w it h o u t th e b e n e f it o f a p le a a gre e m e n t w it h th e gove rn m e n t

. A ts e n te n cin g, Dobrowolski did not object to an y of the informa tion co nta ined in the prese nte nce rep ort or to the length of the ma nda tory- min imu m senten ces tha t the court informe d him w ould appl y . The dis tr ict cour t sent enced him to 120 mont hs’ i mpri sonmenton e ach count , t he sent ences to be s er

v ed c oncur re ntl y .No. 09- 3482

United State s v. Dobrowolski

- 3 - Dob ro w ols ki rais es his cu rrent c onst it uti onal arg uments for t he f irst ti me on ap peal and, thus , w e re v iew

the dis tr ict c our

t’ s d eci si on for pla in er ro r onl y . See United S tate s v. Jeross , 5 2 1 F.3 d 56 2 , 5 8 5 (6t h Cir. 20 0 8 ) (ci ti n g U nite d St ates v. Bostic , 371 F .3d 8 65, 872 -73 (6th Cir . 200 4)). Plain-error rev iew requires a dete rmina tion o f w het her “(1) there
w as an error, (2) the error w a s ‘ o b vio u s o r clear,’ ( 3) the e rror aff ecte d the defend ant 's subs tanti al ri g hts , and ( 4) ‘ thi s a dv erse impact s er iou sl y affect ed th e fair ness , i nteg ri ty , or pub lic repu tatio n of

the jud icial proceed ings.’” Id. (cit in g Unite d S ta te s v. Gar

din er , 463 F.3d 445 , 459 (6th Cir. 2006 )).
The Ei g hth A mendment prov ide s t h a t “[ e ]xces si v e bai l shal l not b e req uired, n or ex ces si v e fines impos ed, nor cr uel and unusu al puni shment s infli cte d.” U. S. C onst . amend VIII

. Al thoug h the Supreme C our t has i nter preted the E ig hth A m e n d m e n t to inc lud e a nar ro w pri nci ple of

propor ti onal ity betw een c ri me and s entenc e, see Ew ing v. California , 538 U .S. 11, 2 0 ( 2003) ( ci ti n g Ha rmelin v. M ichig an , 501 U .S. 957, 996- 97 ( 1991) (K ennedy , J., conc ur ri ng in part and concu rr ing in judg ment) ), thi s p ri nci ple does not dictate str ict propor

ti onal ity , butonly

that the se ntenc e mustnot be “ g ro ss ly di spropor

ti onate” to the c onduc t bei ng puni shed. See Harm elin , 501 U.S. at 10 01 (Ke nne dy, J., concurring i n par t and co ncur ri ng i n j udg ment)

. Fur ther more, i n the abs ence of a cons ti tuti onal mandate to adopt “a ny one pen ological theo ry ,” the jud ic ia l b ranch tradition ally g iv es de feren ce to legislativ e po licy
re g ardin g appropr iat e puni shment s. See Ewing , 53 8 U. S. at25 (cit in g Harm elin , 510 U .S.No. 09- 3482

United State s v. Dobrowolski

- 4 - at 99 9 (Kenn edy, J., concu rring in part and concurring in judgme nt)). T he legislativ e histo ry of 18 U .S.C . §§ 2422- 2423 c lea rl y i ll ust ra tes that C o n gre ss i ntended to impos e l eng thy mandator

y -mi nimum s entenc es in cas es suc h as Dobrow ols ki ’s , s peci fical ly bec ause the attempt ed s ex ual entice m e nt of a mi nor i s a v er y se ri ous cr ime, reg ardle ss of w hether there i s a n ac tual min or w ho i s v icti miz ed. As the Ho u se C onferenc e R epor t di sc uss ing the legi slation state s:
The in creased mandato ry min imum s entenc es are resp o n sive to real p ro b le m s o f ex ces si v e l eni ency i n s entenc ing under

ex is ti ng l aw . F or ex ample, the offenses under ch apter 117 of tit le 18, U nit ed St ates C ode, app ly in sex ual ab use cases involv ing i nte rstate movem entof person s or use of inters tate ins tr umental it ies , s uch as lur ing of chi ld v icti ms t hroug h the Inte rnet. Courts all too f requent ly impo se sent ence s mo re lenien t tha n tho se presc ri bed by

the sent encing g uid eli nes in cas es under ch apter 117, par ti cul ar ly i n si tuati ons w here an undercov er ag ent rather

than a c hil d w as the object o f

the en ticem ent . Yet the of fend er's cond uct in such a case re flect s a real att empt t o eng ag e i n s ex ual abus e of a c hil d, an d the fact t hat the t arg et of the effort t ur ned out to be an undercov er off ic er has no b ear ing on th e culpa bility

of the of fend er, or on th e da nger he p resen ts to children if not a deq uatel y

rest ra ine d and deter re d by cr imi nal puni shment

. H.R. R EP
. N O
. 108- 66, a t 51 (2 003) ( Con f. Rep. ), repr inted in 2003 U. S.C .C .A.N

. 683, 685. W e l ik ew is e hav e ex press ed i n no uncer tai n ter ms that offenses su ch as thos e c ommitt ed by Dobrow ols ki are i ndeed s er iou s, see United State s v. Vowell , 516 F .3d 5 03, 5 12- 13 ( 6th Cir. 20 0 8 ) (a f

f irm in g th e di st ric t c o u rt ’s im p o sit i o n o f a 6 5 -yea r se n te n ce fo r co e rci n g a min or to engage in sexually explicit cond uct and on child porn ography charg e s beca use the “ hei nous nature of hi s c ri mes de monstrated the s er iou snes s o f the offense. ”) ; United S ta t es v. Moore , 91 6 F .2 d 11 31 , 11 39 ( 6t h C i r . 19 90 ) ( “ C hi l d po r no g rap he rs comm itNo. 09- 3482

United State s v. Dobrowolski

- 5 - s e ri o u s cr i m e s w h i c h ca n h a ve d e va s t a t in g e f fe c t s u p o n so c ie t y a n d , m o s tim p o rt a n t ly, upon c hil dren w ho are s ex ual ly abus ed.” ), as hav e cour ts outs ide of t his ci rc uit

. See , e.g. , United States

v. Pugh , 515 F. 3d 1179, 1202 (1 1th Ci r. 2008) ( "[W ]e hav e ty pic all y treated chi ld sex offenses as se ri ous cr imes , uph old ing se v ere s entenc es in thes e c ases .")

. Re vie win g D o b ro wo ls k i’ s se n t e n c e s in li gh to f t h e se ri o u s n e s s o f

h is o f fe n s e s , we conclu de th at th is is notone of those ex ceed ingly

rare ca s e s i n w hich th e crime is so g ro ss ly di spropor

ti onate to t he s entenc e as to cons ti tu te a violati on of the Ei g hth Amendment. Dob ro w ols ki ’s si tuati on does not re motel y re sembl e any one of t he v er y few
cas es in w hic h th e S upreme C our t has found thata g re at di spar ity betw een c ri me and sent ence cons ti tutes an Ei g hth Amendment v iol ati on. See Sole mv. Helm , 463 U .S. 277, 303 (1 983) (fin din g thata s entenc e of li fe impr is onment w it hout the p oss ibi li ty of parole for
a repeat offender

w hose pr ior

cr imes w ere rela ti v ely

min or and w hose charg ed cri me w as mi n o r an d no nviolent v iolate d the propo rtiona lity principle of

the Eighth Ame ndm ent ); W eem s v . U nited St ates , 217 U .S. 34 9 , 3 5 8 , 3 8 2 ( 1910) ( findi ng thata s entenc e of 15 y ears’ imp risonm entand hard labo r for f alsif y ing a pu blic docu me nt w as un const itution al). Mo re ov er , our

dete rmi nati on that the ten-y ear m andator

y -mi nimum- sent ence prov is ion of § 2422( b) does not offend t he Ei g hth A mendment pl aces us i n ag re ement w it h our si ste r ci rc uit s o n thi s i ss ue. See , e.g. , United S tates v. F ar ley, 607 F.3d 12 94 (11 th Cir. 2010 ); United S tates

v. Nagel , 559 F .3d 7 56 ( 7th C ir . 200 9) ; United S ta t e sv. Butte rs , 265 F. Appx 773 (1 0th C ir . F eb. 2 9, 20 08)

.No. 09- 3482

United State s v. Dobrowolski

- 6 - Nor do w e ac ceptD obrow ols ki ’s arg ument that the mand ator y min imums co ntai ned in 18 U .S.C . § 2422( b) unc onst it uti onal ly sh ift sentenc ing di sc re ti on aw ay from t he j udi ci al branch in v iol ati on of sep arati on- of-pow ers pri nci ple s. It is w ell -e sta bli shed that “t he s cope of judicial discretion w ith respe ct to a sen ten ce is subject to congressiona l control.” Uni ted States v. Dum as , 9 3 4 F.2 d 13 8 7 , 1 3 8 9 (6t h Cir. 1 9 9 0 ) (qu o ti n g Mi str etta v. United St

ates , 488 U.S. 361 , 364 (1989 )).
For the rea sons se t outabo v e, w e AFFIRM the judgmen t of the district cou rt .