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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R ANDY ZAC HERLE,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-30245

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00030-SAB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Stanle y Alle n B a stia n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 9, 2017 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : FISHER , PAEZ a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. R andy Za c he rle wa s c onvic t e d for posse ssing c hild pornogra p hy in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252A. Hea ppe a ls tha

t c onvic tion, ra i sing four a rgum e nts: (1) the e vide nc e of c hild pornogra phy found on oneof his la

ptops m ust be suppre sse d be c a use it wa s the produc t of a n unre a sona

ble se arc h a

nd se izure ; (2) the 

# FIL ED

APR 20 2017 M O LLYC. 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.gove rnm e nt viola te d his privile ge a ga inst se lf-inc rim ination by disc ussing his phy sic a l re s ponse to a

singleque stion during a

n inte rrogation in whic h

he wa ive d his right to rem a in sile nt; (3) a jury ha d to find be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt hewa s pre v iously

c onvic te d

for posse ssing c hild pornogra phy ; a nd (4) a lle ge d se nte nc ing guide l ine c a lc ulation e rrors m ust be re ve rse d de spite re c e i ving them a n datory m inim um se nte nc e for his c onvic tion. W e have jurisdic t ion, a nd we a ffirm . 1 The distric t c ourt did not err in finding Za c he rle a ba ndone d the la

ptop on whic h c hild pornogra

phy wa s found. Se e Unite d State s v . N ordling , 804 F.2d 1466, 1469 (9th C ir. 1986) (“ A de te rm ination of a ba ndonm e nt is a

fa c tua l finding that we re vie w for c le ar e rror.” ). Za c he rle le ft this la ptop in M arianne M osque da ’ s be droom for thre e m onths without a ny instruc tion a s to wha

t she wa s to do with it and did not te ll he r anything a bout his where a

bouts. Tha

t he wa s inc arc e rate d during this a

bse nc e is not dispositive . Za c h e rle c ould ha ve a sse rte d c ontrol ove r the l a ptop. He se nt his m othe r to c olle c t his pic k up from M osque da ’ s hom e . M ore o ve r, he wa s sim

ply a gue st in M osque da ’ s hom e . He pa id no re nt or bills and pe rform e d only

m ode st c hore s in e xc ha

nge for room and boa

rd. He c o uld not re a s ona bly e xpe c t M osque da

to store his be longings for months without a ny re que s t from

him to do so. Her de c ision to rid he rse lf of Za c he rle ’ s c om

pute r by 2giving it to his e stra nge d siste r – who subse que ntly gave it to la

w e nforc e m e nt – did not viola

te Za c he rle ’ s Fourth Am e ndm e nt rights. Se e Unite d State s v . W ilson , 472 F.2d 901, 902 (9th C ir. 1972) (“ Se arc h or se izure of a ba ndone d prope rty , e ve n without a wa rrant, is sim

ply not unre a sona

ble .” ). To the de gre e Za c he rle argue s the file s on his c om pute r we re e ntitle d to gre ate r prote c tion tha

n the c om pute r itse lf, we are not pe rsua de d. Za c he rle a ba ndone d his c om

pute r, and he e xhibite d no gre ate r c onc e rn for the file s it c onta ine d. The re is no e vide nc e sugge sting thefile s we re loc k e d. R athe r, he le ft his unloc ke d c om

pute r with unloc ke d file s in a gue s t be d

room for m onths without any atte m pt to e x e rt c ontrol ove r the c om pute r or file s in whic h he now a sse rts a priva c y e xpe c tat ion. It m ay

be tha t Za c he rle thought there wa s no ne e d to prote c t his file s or c om

pute r from M osque da , his e stra nge d siste r or e ve n la

we n forc e m e nt be c a use he wa s c onfide nt a ll e v ide nc e of his wrongdoing wa s de l e te d by the file e ra s e r-softwa

re FB I a ge nts la

te r found on his c om

pute r. That he did not posse ss the “ te c hnic a l sa

vvy ” to unde rsta

nd de le te d file s c ould be re c ove re d with theright tools doe s not givehim

the right to a sse rt a

n e xpe c tation of priva c y

he pre viously a ba ndone d. Unite d State

s v . Borow

y , 595 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th C ir. 2010) (quoting Unite d State s v . Ganoe , 538 F.3d 1117, 1127 (9th C ir. 2008)). 2 3Za c he rle ’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt rights were not viola te d whe n the jury wa s a llowe d to he ar a

de sc ription of his phy sic a l re sponse a fte r be i ng a s ke d whe the r he downloa de d c hild pornogra phy . Za c he rle a gre e d to spe ak with la w e nforc e m e nt offic e rs a fte r be ing re a d his Miranda rights. Hean swe re d a ll of the ir que stions with ve rba l re sponse s, e xc e pt for one . To tha t que stion, Za c he rle gave a phy sic a l re sponse – c urling into a

fe t a l position on his c

h a ir. The re is no e vide n c e the que stioning offic e r “ e xe rt[e d ] pre ssure ” or wa s anything but “ c ourte ous.” U nite d State s v . Lore nzo , 570 F.2d 294, 298 (9th C ir. 1978). Nor is the re e vide nc e Za c he rle m a de any e xp lic it sta t e m e nt a l e rting theoffic e r he wishe d to e x e rc ise his privile ge a ga inst se lf-inc rim ination a s to tha t que s tion a

nd not others. Inde e d, he answe re d the que stions tha

t followe d with ve rba l re s ponse s. Give n Za c he rle ’ s

“ willingne ss . . . to talk” an d “ c ontinue d [willingne ss] to do so a fte r his fa ilure to re spond [ve rba lly ] to a

singleque stion,”“ he c annot be sa id to ha ve invoke d his right to re m a in sile nt,” tota lly or se le c t ive ly . Id.

3 The Supre m e C ourt ha s long re c ogniz e d “ the fa c t of a prior c onvic tion” is a na rrow e xc e ption to the

ge ne ra l rule tha

t fa c ts inc re a sing thesta

t utory se nte nc e m ust be subm itte d to a

jury and prove n be y ond a re a sona ble doubt. Appre n di v . N e w J e rse y , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000); se e also Alle y nev . Unite d State

s , 133 S. C t. 42151, 2160 n.1 (2013) (c iting Alme ndare z-Torre s v . Unite d State

s , 523 U.S. 224 (1998)). Ac c ordingly , the jury did not ha ve to de te rm ine tha

t Za c he rle wa s pre v iously

c onvic te d

of posse ssion of c hild pornogra phy to trigge r the m andatory m inim um se nte nc e of 10 y e ars. Se e Appre ndi , 530 U.S. a t 490; 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(b)(2). 4 B e c a use Za c he rle ’ s c onvic tion for posse ssion of c hild pornogra phy c a rrie d a m inim um 10-y e a r se nte nc e in light of his pre vious c onvic tion, a

ny othe r se nte nc ing e rror is m oot be c a use the distric t

c ourt ha d no disc re tion to im pose a se nte nc e lowe r tha

n the one he re c e i ve d. Se e Me le nde z v . Unite d State

s , 518 U.S. 120, 126-27 (1996). The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D .

5