FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT AUG 27, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1545 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 06-00259 -CR UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us BRUCE M ICHAEL ORR, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u th e rnD i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A ug us t 27, 200 8) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Br uc e Mi ch ae l O rr

appe al s hi s c onvi ct ionand 1 68- m onth se nte nc e fo r (1 ) re ce ivi ng c hil d po rn ogr ap hy in vio latio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 2 252A (a )( 2) , ( b) (1 ); and (2 ) po ss es si ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a)(5 )(B) . F o r th e r e a s o n s s t a t e db e l o w , w e a f f i rm. F ac ts Br uc e O rr ( “ Br uc e” ) w as m ar

ri ed to Sa lin da

O rr and l ive d w ithhe r an d Salinda’ s daught er f

rom a previous relationship , “ M.” Mr. and Mrs. Or r had been havin g m ar ita l di ff

ic ult ie s and a gr ee d th at

S al ind a an d M w oul d li ve on the bottom floor of the house while Bruce would live upst airs. Acom puter with internet ac ce ss w as a cc es sib le to al l thr ee and w as ke pt d ow nst ai rs . In Marc h of 2005 , S alinda tookthe com puter to Joh n Goodm an, the tea cher in a com puter class taught at Salinda’ s church. S he com plained to Goodm an that the c om put er w as r unni ng s low ly

and tha t i t c ra she d of

te n. G oodm antoo k th e co m put er to a te ch nic ian who d isc ove re d po rn ogr ap hic im ag es of c hil dr enon the com puter and the technician returned the com puter to Goodm an. Goodm an inform ed Salinda of the im ages and rem oved the origi nal hard drive (re ferr ed to as Q -2 ) an d pl ac ed

it int o an anti static ba g f

or pr ote ct ionf

ro m static int er fe re nc e or anythi ng tha t m igh t e ra se it s c ont en ts. G oodm anthe n in sta lle d ahard dr ive ont o th e co m pu te r (ref erre d t o a s Q-3 ), al on g wi th a ne w op erat in g s y st em , W in do ws3

X P. G oodm anthe n c re at ed thr ee a cc ount s w ithpa ssw or d pr ote ct ion , one e ac h f or Br uc e, S al ind a, and M . I t w as pos sib le , how ev er , that e ac h us er c oul d c hange the pa ssw or ds o f oth er

use rs and l og- in a s th ose oth er use rs by w ay of the a d mi n i s tr a t o r

a c c o u n t . G o o d manth e nr e tu rn e dth e c o mp u t e r t o S a l i n d as o me t i me in m id- to- late Apr il. B ru ce w as not tol d th at any body kne wof the im ag es on the Q -2 . T he e ve nts of

Jun e 18, 200 5 w er e dis put ed a t tri al . A cc or din g to the G ove rn m en t, Br

uc e w as usi ng the c om

put er and s te ppe d aw ay . M the n w en t t o th e com puter and found im ages of child pornog raphy and notified Salinda, w ho then tookpictures of the scree n usin g a digital cam era. A n argum ent ensued in which Sa lin datol d B ru ce that sh e kne wof the im ag es on Q -2 and tha t G oodm anha d th e hard drive. Bruce r espond ed, thre atening Salinda, and stating that sh e had better get the hard drive back. Salinda then notified the FBI. A cc or din g to Br

uc e, he e nte re d th e hous e on the 18th and n oti ce d S al ind a an d M at t he co m

pu te r. He st at edth atth ey were s hi el di ng th e sc reen fro m hi m . H e cl ai m ed

that S al ind a w as usi ng the thr eat of c hil d po rn ogr ap hy

a s an a tte m

pt t o bla ckm ai l hi m

in the ir div or ce pr oc ee din gs. Betw een the two har d drives, fore nsic experts found th ousand s of im ages containin g child po rnography . They also found th at the Bruce account had4

ac ce sse d c hil d po rn ogr ap hy on m ult ipl e oc ca sio ns. O n so m e day s, tho usands of im ag es w er e ac ce sse d. E vid en ce a lso sho w ed that the use r of

the Br uc e ac co unt se ar ch ed the int er ne t us ing te rm s su cha s “ L oli ta , ” “ kid s, ” “ ch ild , ” “por no, ” an d

“ ill eg al . ” T he Br

uc e ac co unt

a lso vis ite d aw eb sit e co nta ini ng r ef er en ce s to

“ ex tr em e L oli ta s” 328 ti m es . N o e vid en ce e xis te d th at

the oth er tw o a cc ount s e ve r ac ce sse d c hil d pornog raphy , nor w as there e vidence that any other child porno graphy existed at the hous e or in any

other disc, CD , or DV D. O n June 18 th, a user logg ed in und er the M acc ount , c hanged Bruce’ s account password and deleted the files contained in th e te m po rary int ern etfol de r, a fo ld er t ha t s av es im ag es of t he webs it es vi si te d. Asho rt cu t t o a ll the c hil d po rn ogr ap hic im ag es that w er e sto re d inthe “ favor ite s” fo lde r in the Br

uc e ac co unt

w as a lso de le te d. B oththe te m por ar y int er ne t f ile s and the shortcut were restored by the Governm ent’ s forensic expert, who stated that the ind ex . da t f

ile c oul d no t be de le te d and tha t this f ile c ont ai ne d ali st o f al l the w eb sit es vis ite d. Br uc e te sti fi ed

that he use d th e te rm s “ L oli ta ” an d “ te en ” to s earc h f or a dul t pornog raphy . He stated that child po rnography would “pop-up ” on the screen whe n h e wou ldsea rch foradul t p orno gr ap hy bu t t ha t h e wou ldclo se th e win do ws be cau se he was n otin te res te d i n i t.5

Bru ce o b t ai n eda f

o re n s i c e x p er t , M i ch ae l Bl ac k . P ri o r t o th e t ri al , B ru ce ’s tr ia l c ouns el f

ai le d to c om

ply w ithr equir em en ts r el at ing to the dis cl osur e of his fo re nsi c expe rt ’ s r ep ort and the j udge li m ite d th e ex te nt t o whic h B la ck c oul d te st ify. T he j ur y r et ur ne d agui lty

ve rd ic t f or both r ec ei vin g and p oss es sin g c hil d por nogr ap hy . A t se nte nc ing , the j udge a ppl ie d an e nhanc em en t f

or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e ba se d onBr

uc e’ s te sti m ony

that he did

not int en d to vie wc hil d pornog raphy

by using the searc h term s “ Lolita” or “preteen, ” etc. T he j udge then sentenced Bruce to 168 m onth s, the bottom of the Sentencing Guidelines range. D isc us sio n (1) Ineffective Assistance of Couns el Br uc e ar gue s th at

he w as c onst itutio na lly

de pr ive d of

his S ixth A m en dm en t ri ght to ef fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el and tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de ny ing hi s m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l b ecau se hi s t ria l co un se l was in effe ct iv e. Whe the r a cr im ina l de fe ndant’ s tr ia l c ouns el w as c onst itutio na lly ine ff ec tiv e is a m ixe d qu es tio n of

lawand f

ac t, sub j ec t t o de nov o r ev ie w . U nit ed S tate s v. Bender, 290 F.3d 1279 , 1284 (11th Cir. 2002). W e re view a district court’ s denial of am oti on f

or ne wtr ia l f

or an a buse of dis cr et ion . U nit ed

S tate s v. T okars , 95 F . 3 d1 5 2 0 , 1 5 3 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) . T h i s c o u rtd o e s n o tg e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r c l a i ms6

of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel raised on direct appeal w here the district court di d n oten te rta in th e cl ai m or d ev el op a fact ua l re co rd . Ben de r, 20 9 F .3dat 1 28 4. How ever, this court can reviewan ineffe ctive assistance of counsel claim on direct ap pe al so l ong as the re is suf fi ci en t e vid en ce in the tr ia l r ec or d r eg ar din g th e cl ai m . I d. A n in ef

fe ct ive a ssi stanc e of

c ouns el c la im

is co nsi de re d un de r the two -p ro ng tes t an no un cedin Str ic kl an d v . W as hi ng to n 4 66 U.S. 66 8, 6 87 (19 84 ). Under the f

irst, def icient perform ance prong, the appellant m ust sh ow that counsel m ad e er ro rs so s er iou s he w as not f unc tio nin g a s th e co unse l gu ar an te ed by the Si xthA m en dm en t. I d. T he re is a str ong pr es um pti on tha t c ouns el ’ s c ondu ct f el l w ith in the r an ge of

r ea sona ble pr of es sio na l a ssi stanc e. I d. a t 68 9. U nde r the pr ej udi ce pr ong, “ [t ] he de fe ndant m ust sho wthat the re is a re as ona ble pr oba bil ity that, but f or c ouns el ’ s unpr of

es sio na l e rr or s, the r es ult of the pr oc ee din g w oul d ha ve be en di ffer en t.” Id . at 6 94 . H er e, the r ec or d is suf

fi ci en tly de ve lop ed

f or thi s c ourt t o he ar

the ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e cl ai m

on a ppe al ; B ru ce r ai se d th is i ssu e in h is M oti on f or N ewT ri al and the c ourt a ddr es se d it a t l en gth . S ee U nit ed

S tate s v. Cam ac ho, 40 F. 3d 34 9, 355 n.6 (11th Cir. 1994). Bruce’ s claim fails, however, because he has not de m onstrate d th at

he w as pr ej udi ce d by

the f ac t tha t B la ck ’ s e xpe rt

te sti m ony w as li m ite d. A cc or din g to Br uc e’ s br ie f, ha d B la ck

be enable to te sti fy

w ith out7

lim itation, he would have testified to the following: (1) althou gh the Bruce account on the com

puter had adm inistrative rights to the com puter, so did all user ac co unt s; ( 2) the pa ssw or d to the Br uc e ac co unt

w as c hange d onJun e 18th by the user of the M ac count; and(3) the shortcut to the tem porary internet file f

older w hic h w as c re at ed

w he n th e co m

put er w as und er

G oodm an ’ s c ar e w as a lso ac ce sse d and d el et ed . The r ecord on appeal dem onstrates that these issu es we re pre sented at trial when Br uce’ s counsel cross-exam ined the Governm ent’ s expert. Further, Bruce fa ils to expla in h owany

te sti m ony

Bl ac k w oul d have pr ovi de d w oul d have inf lue nc ed the out co m e. T hus, e ve n a ssum ing that B ru ce m ee ts the f ir st S tr ic kland pr ong, he f

ai ls t o sh owthat but- fo r any tr ia l c ouns el e rr or , the r es ult of the pr oc eed in g wo ul d h av e b een di ffer en t. (2 ) Se nte nc ing

E nhan ce m en t f

or O bstruc tio n of

J ust ic e, und

er U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1 Br uc e co nte nds that a lth ougha§ 3C 1. 1, tw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t i s ap pr opr iate if

ade fe ndant c om

m its pe rj ur

y , the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in co nc lud ing th atBru ce p erju redhi m se lf. W e re view a district court’ s factual f indin gs regarding the im

posit ion of a se nte nc ing e nhanc em en t f or obs tr uc tio n of j ust ic e fo r cl ear er

ro r an d it s application o f the fa ctual findings to the Sentencing Guidelines de nov o. United8

States v. Tam

pas, 493 F.3d 1291, 1303 (11 th Cir. 2007 ). W e give great def erence to the dist rict court’ s credibility determ ination s where the court m ust m ake an assessm ent of the cre dibil ity or the dem eanor of the defe ndant, such as when ap ply ing the obs tr

uc tio n of j ust ic e enhanc em en t f

or pe rj ur y . U nit ed S tate s v. Banks, 347 F.3d 1266, 1269 (11th Cir. 2003). Under U .S .S .G . § 3C1. 1, a defendant m ay qualify for a two-level enhanc em en t i f he or

she “ w ill fu lly

obs tr uc te d or im pe de d, or a tte m pte d to obstru ct or im pe de , the a dm ini str at ionof j ust ic e dur ing the c our se of the inv es tig at ion , pr ose cu tio n, or se nte nc ing of

the ins tant o ff

en se of c onvi ct ion , and [] the obs tr

uc tiv e co nduc t r el at ed

to [] the de fe ndant’ s of

fe nse of c onvi ct ionand any r el ev an t c ondu ct . ” U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1. O ne m ay obs tr uc t or im pe de j ust ic e by

“ co m m itt ing , sub or

nin g, or a tte m pti ng t o su

bor n pe rj ur y . ” U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1, co m m en t. (n .4(b )). Fo r th e p ur po se of a n o bs tru ct io n fi nd in g p ur su an t t o § 3C 1.1 , pe rj ur y ha s be ende fi ne d a s “ fa lse te sti m ony c onc er nin g am at er ia l m atte r w iththe w ill fu l i nte nt t o pr ovi de f al se te sti m ony , r athe r than a s ar es ult of c onf usi on, m is ta ke , or fa ul ty m em ory .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Dun ni ga n, 5 07 U.S. 87 , 94 (19 93 ). Fo r pur pose s of U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1, “ ‘ Mate ri al ’ . . . m eans e vid en ce , f ac t, state m en t, or inform ation that, if believed, would tend to in fluence or a ffec t the issue un der de te rm inatio n. ” U . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 1, c om m en t. ( n. 6) . “ Whe n a

ppl y ing thi s9

enhancem ent, the district court [should] m ake specific f indin gs as to each alleged in st an ce o f ob st ru ct io n b y id en ti fy in g t he m at eri al ly fals e st at em en ts in di vi du al ly. .

. . H ow ev er , age ne ra l f

ind ing that an e nhanc em en t i s w ar ra nte d su ff ic es if it encom passes all of the factual pre dicates necessary for a perj ury

finding.” United St at es v. S ing h, 291 F . 3d 7 56, 763 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . F our e le m en ts m

ust be pr es en t i n or de r fo r a co urt t o m ak e a fi ndi ng tha t a de fe ndant p er

j ur ed him se lf : ( 1) the testim ony

m ust be und er oath or af

firm ation; (2) the testim ony m ust be false; (3 ) the te sti m ony

m ust be m at er ia l; an d ( 4) the te sti m ony m ust be giv enw iththe w ill fu l i nte nt t o pr ovi de f al se te sti m ony

and n ot a s ar es ult

of am ist ak e, c onf

usi on, orfau lt y m em ory . Id. at76 3 n .4. T he G ove rn m en t’ s e xpe rt w itn es s te sti fi ed

that whe n he pe rf

orm ed his an al y si s o f Q-3 , he f

ou ndin te rn etsea rch es co nt ai ni ng th e te rm s “ Lol it a,”

“pr et ee n, ” “ kid s, ” “ ch ild , ” “por no, ” an d “ ill eg al . ” H e furthe r te sti fi ed that he fo und ove r 3, 000 im ag es of c hil d po rn ogr ap hy

in the te m

por ar y int er ne t f old er and that there w ere 328 v isits bythe Bruce account to a we bsite containi ng refer ences to “ extrem e L olitas.” Br uc e te sti fi ed

that whe n he use d th e se ar chte rm s “ L oli ta , ” “ te en , ” an d

“preteen, ” he did so to findadult—no t child—po rnography . The district courtB ru c e sp e c if ic a lly state s that he is no t a lle g ingon a pp e a l th at th e se nte nc e is p ro c e dura lly 1 unrea sonable. 10 found Bruce’ s testim ony

to be incredible in ligh t of the evidence. W e cannot say that the c ourt’ s f

ind ing is cl earl y

e rr one ous. (3) R easona ble Sentence Br uc e furthe r co nte nds that hi s se nte nc e is s ubst an tia lly unr ea sona

ble be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a de quate ly w ei gh a ll the § 35 53( a) f ac tor s and pla ce d to o m

uc h w ei ght

on the ne ed

f or de te rr en ce and p uni shm en t. 1 W e re vie wthe f

ina l se nte nc e im

pose d by the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or reas on ab le ne ss . Uni te d S ta te s v . Agb ai , 49 7 F .3d12 26 , 12 29 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). W e re vie wf

or r ea sona ble ne ss unde r anabuse -o f- dis cr et ionstandard . G al l, 552 U.S. at _ _, 1 28 S.Ct . at 5 97 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt m

ust im pose ase nte nc e that i s bo th p ro ce dur al ly and subs tantively

rea sonable. Id. If

the district court m ade no procedural err ors, then the sub stanti ve r ea sona

ble ne ss o f the se nte nc e im pose d is r ev ie w ed

to de te rm ine whe th er t he sen te nc e is supp or te d b y th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Gal l, 1 28 S.Ct . at 6 00 . T he § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s in cl ude : (1 ) the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse and the his tor

y and ch ar ac te ri sti cs of

the de fe ndant; ( 2) the ne ed to re fl ec t the se ri ousn es s of the of fe nse , to pr om ote r es pe ct f or the law , and t o pr ovi de j ust puni shm ent for the offe nse; (3) the need for dete rrence ; (4) the need11

to p ro te ct the pub lic ; ( 5) the ne ed

to pr ovi de the de fe ndant w ith ne ed ed e duc at ion al or

voc at ion al tr ai nin g or

m ed ic al c ar e; ( 6) the kin ds o f se nte nc es a va ila ble ; ( 7) the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s r an ge ; ( 8) pe rt ine nt p oli cy

state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion ; ( 9) the ne ed to av oid unw ante d se nte nc ing dis pari tie s; and ( 10) the ne ed to pr ovi de r es tit

uti on t o vi ct im s. 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) . Whe n adis tr ic t c our t se nte nc es ade fe ndant w ith in the G uid el ine s r an ge , onl y

abr ie f dis cu ssi on o f the r ea sons f or the se nte nc es is re qui re d and the dis tr ic t c ourt ne ed not e xpl ic itl y

a ddr es s e ac h of

the se nte nc ing factors. See United State s v. Sc ott, 426 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2005). Bruce’ s argum ent is without m erit. T he sentence im posed bythe court wa s at the bottom

of the advisory

Guidelines range. T he rec ord dem onstrates that when im posin g Bruce’ s sentence, the district court stated that a Guidelin e sentence w as appr opr iate in thi s c as e giv enthe statut or y pur pose s f or se nte nc ing - specifically

deterre nce and incapacitation. A fter im posin g the sentence, the c ourt state d “ I fi nd the gui de lin e range appr opr iate to the f ac ts and c ir cum stanc es of thi s ca se and f

ind that the se nte nc e im

pose d a ddr es se s th e se ri ousn es s of the of fe nse an d th e se nte nc ing obj ec tiv es of pun ish m en t, de te rr en ce , and i nc ap ac itatio n, w hil e being reasonable in lig ht of the statuto ry purposes o f sentencing.” O nly a brief discuss ion of the reasons for the sentences is required, and the district court need12

n o tex p l i ci t l y ad dre s s ea ch o f t h e s en t en ci n g fa ct o rs . S co t t , 4 2 6 F. 3 dat1 3 2 9 . We can no t s ay

th atth e d is tri ctco ur t erredin im po si ng th e se nt en ce. Ac cordingly , w e AFFIRM .