# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 36 89

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ran dy Bis e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F ay et te vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ly 22, 2 01 5 Fil ed : J ul y

27 , 20 15 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ran dy Bi se di rect ly ap pe al s th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t aft er he 1 pl ead ed gu il ty to two co un ts of pr od u c i n g c h i l d po rn og rap hy, in vi ol at io n of 18

Th e Hon or ab le Tim ot hy L. Bro ok s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r t h e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.U.S.C. § 22 51 (a). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Bi se to 36 0 m on th s in pr is on fo ll owe d

by 25 years of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, whi ch in cl ud ed a sp eci al co nd it io n li m it in g hi s in te rn et acce ss

.

On ap pe al
, co un se l m ov ed to wit hd r aw an d fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia
, 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7)
, arg u in g th at th e se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se th e co ur t erre d in weig hi ng th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s; an d th at th e co ur t erre d in im

po si ng th e sp eci al su pe rv is ed -rel eas e co nd it io n. W e de ni ed

co un se l’s wit hd rawal m ot io n an d or de red su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g ad dr es si ng whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of a 2 -le ve l s en te nc in g e nh an cem en t un de r U.S.S.G. §§ 3D1 .2, 3D1.4 (g ro up in g of offe ns es ), an d a 5- le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.5 (b ) (in crea se fo r pa tt ern of act iv it y in vo lv in g pr oh ib it ed se xu al co nd uc t wit h

a m in or ), res ul te d in im

pe rm is si bl e do ub le co un ti ng , as bo th en ha nc em en ts ap pe ared

to be ba se d on ev id en ce th at pr oh ib it ed co nd uc t oc cu rred on two se pa rat e oc cas io ns wit h t he same vic ti m

.

Upo n rev ie win g th e su pp le m en ta l br ie fs
, we co nc lu de th at ap pl ic at io n of bo th

en ha nc em en ts di d no t co ns ti tu te im pe rm is si bl e do ub le -co un ti ng

. See Uni te d St at es

v. Cl ark
, 78 0 F.3 d 89 6
, 89 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (p er cu ria m ) (d e no vo rev ie w). Sp eci fic al ly, th e di st r i c t c ou rt pr op erl y de cl in ed to gr ou p th e co un ts un de r se ct io n 3D1 .2, se e U.S.S.G. § 3D1 .2, co m men t

. ( n

. 4) (p ro vi si on au th or iz es gr ou pi ng of of f e n s e s on ly whe n th ey rep res en t on e co m po si te ha rm ; fo r ex am

pl e, ro bb eri es of

sa m e vi ct im on di ffer en t oc cas io ns are no t gr ou pe d) ; Uni te d St at es v. Kiel
, 45 4 F.3 d 8 19
, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (d is tri ct co ur t pr op erl y refu se d to gr ou p th ree co un t s o f
pr od uc in g ch il d po rn og rap hy in vo lv in g sa m e vi ct im un de r § 3D1 .2, be cau se de fen da nt in fli ct ed di st in ct ha rm each ti m e he m ol es te d th e vi ct im ), whi ch res ul te d in a 2- le ve l in c reas e; an d we fin d no th in g in th e Gui de li ne s pr ev en ti ng us e of th e

s a me co nd uc t fo r th e Ch ap te r Fo ur en ha nc em en t, se e U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1
, co m m en t

. (n .4(B )) (Gu id el in es Ch ap te rs Two, Thre e, an d Fou r are to be ap pl ie d cum ul at iv el y

an d, in so m e cas es , m ay be tri gg e r e d by sa m e co nd uc t); U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.5 (b )(1 )

-2

-(o ffen se le ve l sh al l be 5 pl us of fen se le ve l de te rm in ed un de r C h a p t e r s Two an d Thre e); Uni te d St at es v. Pap pa s, 71 5 F.3 d 22 5, 22 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (d ou bl e co un ti ng is pr oh ib it ed on ly if Gui de li ne s at iss ue sp eci fic al ly fo rb id it ); Uni te d S ta te s v . Von Loh
, 41 7 F.3 d 71 0, 71 4- 15 (7 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (rejec ti ng d o ub le -co un ti ng arg um en t whe re di st ric t co ur t di d no t gr ou p of fen se s un de r § 3D1 .2 an d ap pl ie d 5- le ve l in crea se

un de r § 4B 1.5 (b ) fo r sa m e co nd uc t, as pr oc es s fo r de te rm in in g ba se of fen se le ve l

un de r Ch ap te rs Two an d Thre e is un rel at ed to pr oc es s fo r cal cu la ti ng en ha nc em en ts

un de r Ch ap te r Fo ur ).

As to th e co nt en ti on s in co un se l’s And ers br ie f, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t’s be lo w-Gui de li ne s se nt en ce was no t su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. S e e Uni te d St at es

v. Sal azar -Ale m an , 74 1 F.3 d 87 8
, 8 8 1 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 13 ) (u nd er su bs ta nt iv e rev ie w, di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n if it f a il s to co ns id er rel ev an t fact or , gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to im

pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or , or co m m it s cl ear erro r of

jud gm en t in weig hi ng fa c t o r s ) ; U n it ed St at es v. Lazar sk i, 56 0 F.3 d 73 1, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (wh en di st ric t co ur t va rie s do wnwar d fro m pr es um pt iv el y reas on ab le Gui de li ne s

reco m m en da ti on , it is “ ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e” tha t cou rt abu se d it s di sc ret io n by no t

va ry in g do wnwar d fu rth er). W e rev i e w fo r pl ai n erro r th e ch al le ng e to th e sp eci al

su pe rv is ed rel eas e co nd it io n, as Bi se di d no t ob ject to th e co nd it io n at se nt en ci ng , se e Fed . R . C rim. P. 52 (b ); Uni te d St at es v. Si m on s, 6 1 4 F.3 d 47 5, 47 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (wh en de fen da nt fai ls to ob ject to su pe rv is ed rel eas e co nd it io n at se nt en ci ng , rev ie w is fo r pl ai n erro r), an d we fin d no su ch erro r, se e 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d ) (co nd it io n m us t be reas on ab ly relat ed to cert ai n § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, inv ol ve no gr eat er dep riv at io n of li be rty th an reas on ab ly ne ces s a r y, a nd be co ns is te nt wit h Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on
po li cy st at em en ts ); cf. U.S.S.G. § 5D1 .3(d )(7 )(B) (rec om m en di ng sp eci al co nd it io n li m it in g us e of co m

pu te r or in te ract iv e co m

pu te r se rv ic e in se x of

fen se cas e in whi ch de fen da nt us ed su ch it em s)

.

Fi na ll y , we co nc lu de Bi se ’s ad di ti on al pr o se as se rti on th at th e ev id en ce
ag ai ns t hi m m ay ha ve be en ta in te d by po li ce m is co nd uc t fai ls
, as he st ip ul at ed to th e

-3

-go ve rn m en t’s fact ua l ba si s du rin g th e pl ea he ari ng

. See Uni te d St at es v. Lim le y , 51 0

F.3 d 82 5, 82 7 (8t h Cir. 20 07 ) (v al id gu il ty ple a is ad m is si on of gu il t th at waiv es al l

no n- juri sd ic ti on al de fect s an d d efen se s)

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-