# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 13 70

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Don al d A. Harv ey

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 Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

8, 2 01 8

Fil ed : M ay

30 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re LOKEN, BEAM, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

A gr an d jury ch arg ed D o n a l d Harv ey wit h rece ip t of ch il d po rn og rap hy in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 A(a)(2 ) (Co un t I), an d po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy

in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 4) (B) (Co un t II). The f a c t u a l ba si s fo r bo th

co un ts was ch il d po rn og rap hy fo un d whe n po li ce se arch ed th e To s h i b a ha rd dr iv e

f r o m H a r v ey ’s la pt op co m pu te r. Befo re tri al

, Harv ey pl ead ed no lo co nt en de re,

ad m it ti ng a fact ua l bas is fo r bo th co un ts

. Harv ey m ov ed to wit hd raw his pl ea. Thedi st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n aft er a he ari ng an d su bs eq ue nt ly im po se d co nc ur ren t 1

se nt en ces of 74 m on th s in pr is on on each co un t, va ry in g do wnwar d fro m th e ad vi so ry

gu id el in es ran ge of 13 5 to 16 8 m on th s. Harv ey ti m el y a p p e a le d. W e affi rm ed th e

de ni al of hi s m ot io n to wit hd raw th e pl ea. Howev er, we co nc lu de d th at bo th co un ts

are ba se d on th e sa m e act or tra ns act io n an d th eref or e co nv ic ti on s on bo th vi ol at ed

th e Dou bl e Je op ard y Cl au se ; we rem an de d to th e di st ric t co u r t “ to ex erci se it s

di sc ret io n to va cat e on e of th e un de rlyin g co nv ic ti on s an d to res en te nc e Harv ey .”

Uni te d St at es v. Harv ey , 8 29 F.3 d 58 6, 59 1 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 16 ), qu ot in g Bal l v. Uni te d

St at es

, 47 0 U.S. 85 6, 86 4 (1 98 5)

. On rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t va cat ed Co un t II, th e

le ss er-i nc lu de d po ss es si on co un t, and ag ai n i m po se d a 74 -m on th sen te nc e. Harv ey

ap pe al s, arg ui ng a nu m

be r of se nt en ci ng is su es in it ia ll y rai sed dur ing the re se nten ci ng

pr oc eed in gs . W e aff

irm.

Bec au se th e res en te nc in g is su es in vo lv e th e na tu re of Harv ey ’s of fen se

, we

be gi n wi th ba ck gr ou nd fact s s ta te d i n o ur pri or op in io n, Har ve y , 82 9 F .3d at 5 88 :

“ In earl y 20 14

, Om ah a Po li ce arre st ed an d de t a i n e d Harv ey on a ch arg e

un rel at ed to th is cas e an d se iz ed h i s To s h ib a la pt op

. Fro m jail

, Harv ey as ke d hi s

f rie nd Ri na t Ch as e to pi ck up hi s la pt op fro m th e Om ah a Po li ce Dep art m en t an d

ch eck th e la pt op to m ak e su re hi s pe rs on al do cu m en ts an d ph ot os were st il l on th e

la pt op

. Ch as e pi ck ed up th e la pt op

, bu t sh e was un ab le to lo g on to th e la pt op us in g

th e p as swo rd s Har ve y

ga ve he r.

“Ch a s e to ok th e la pt op to a co m pu te r rep ai r st or e. An em pl oyee at th e st or e

ad vi se d Ch as e th e l a p t o p w ou ld be ex pe ns iv e to rep ai r, bu t th e st or e co ul d tra ns fer

th e in fo r m at io n fro m th e la pt op ’s ha rd dr iv e to an ot he r de vi ce. Ch as e br ou gh t he r

own ex te rn al ha rd dr iv e to th e st or e fo r th e tra ns fer. A few da y s la te r, Ch as e pi ck ed

The Hon or ab le Ly le E. St ro m

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1

Neb ras ka

.

-2

-up he r ex te rn al ha rd dr iv e, lo o k e d th ro ug h it s co nt en ts

, an d di sc ov ered wha t sh e

be li ev ed was c hi ld po rn og rap hy.

“ On May 21

, 20 14

, a jud ge rel eas ed Harv ey on bo nd in th e un rel at ed cas e an d

or de red hi m to rep or t to th e Sal va ti on Arm y Adu lt R e h a b i li ta ti on Faci li ty. Ch as e

pi ck ed hi m u p f

r o m th e jail an d th e ne xt da y dr ov e hi m to th e Sal va ti on Arm y

.

Befo re sh e dr op pe d hi m at th e Sal va ti on Ar my

, C h a s e he lp ed Harv ey ru n so m e

erra nd s, an d sh e bo ug ht hi m a ne w cel l ph on e. Harv ey was co nt in uo us ly on th e cel l

ph on e un ti l Ch as e dr op pe d hi m of f. Late r, Ch as e br ou gh t Harv ey ’s la pt op to hi m at

th e Sal va ti on Arm

y an d pi ck ed up th e c e l l p h o n e sh e pu rch as ed Harv ey

. Ch as e

lo ok ed th ro ug h Har v e y’s i n t e rn et br ows in g hi st or y on th e ph on e an d cl ic ke d on a

li nk

, whi ch to ok he r to a web si te c o n t a in in g vi de os of pr ep ub es cen t m al es an d

fem al es en ga ge d i n s ex ua l ac ts

.

“ On J ul y 7, 2 01 4, Ch as e rep or te d t o t he Bel le vu e Po li ce Dep art m en t t ha t s he

d i s c o v e red ch il d po rn og rap hy on Harv ey ’s co m pu te r an d th at Harv ey ha d vi ewe d

ch il d po rn og rap hy on th e cel l ph on e sh e pu rch as ed fo r hi m

. The ne xt da y

, Bel le vu e

Po li ce ob ta in ed an d ex ecu te d se arch warra nt s fo r th e cel l ph on e an d Ch as e’s ex te rn al

ha rd dr iv e, whi ch st il l co nt ai ne d th e fil es th e co m pu te r rep ai r st or e tra ns ferr ed fro m

Harv ey ’s la pt op

. In th e se arch

, po li ce fo un d ch il d po rn og rap hy on th e ex te rn al ha rd

dr iv e.

“ Po li ce al so wen t to th e Sal va ti on A r my t o s e iz e Harv ey ’s la pt op

, bu t th e

la pt op was in pi eces an d th e h a r d d r i v e w as m is si ng

. A week la te r, ho wev er, an

em pl oyee at th e Sal va ti on Arm y was cl ean in g a bo ok sh el f in a co m m on area whe n he

fo un d th e Tos hi ba ha rd dr iv e fro m Harv ey ’s la pt op hi dd en be hi nd so m e bo ok s. The

Sal va ti on Arm

y ga ve th e ha rd dr iv e to th e Om ah a Po li ce Dep art m en t, whi ch in tu rn

ga ve it to th e Bel le vu e Po li ce Dep art m en t.

-3

-“ Bel le vu e Po li ce ob ta in ed a se arch warra nt an d se arch ed th e ha rd dr iv e. In th e

se arch

, po li ce di sc ov ered 36 vi de os of ch il d po rn og rap hy wit h crea ti on da te s ran gi ng

fro m Nov em be r 20 12 th ro ug h M ay

20 13 .”

1. On ap pe al

, Harv ey fir st arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n whe n

it (a) de ni ed hi s req ue st to is su e su bp oe na s di rect in g th e Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka

Pro ba ti on Offi ce to pe rm it Harv ey ’s “ ex pe rts ” at th e Uni ve rs it y of Neb ras k a to

ex am in e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or ts (PSR s) “ fo r al l of th e fed eral pr os ecu ti on s

fo r po ss es si on or rece ip t of ch il d po rn og rap hy wit hi n th e Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka si nc e

th e effe ct iv e da te of th e PROTECT Act in 20 05 ,” an d (b ) refu se d hi s de m an d to ta ke

jud ic ia l no ti ce of PSRs an d ot he r do cu m en ts “ in a va rie t y o f ch il d po rn og rap hy

cas es .” Harv ey arg ue s th is di sc ov ery was ne ed ed so th at hi s ex pe rts co ul d as se ss

whe th er th ere are “ m ark ed di sc rep an ci es be twee n th e se nt en ci ng pa tt ern s fo r each of

th e Arti cl e III jud ge s who ha ve ha nd le d th es e c as es ” th at wou ld es ta bl is h a pa tt ern

of un warra nt ed sen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s v io la ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(6 ).

In de cl in in g to rev is it it s ru li ng s, th e di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed at res en te nc in g th at

it wou ld no t al lo w “ go in g in an d st ud y in g [PSR s] an d se nt e nc in gs in ot he r cas es ”

be cau se “ ev ery cas e is un iq ue .” Tha t ru li ng is co ns is te nt wit h pr io r de ci si on s of th is

co ur t. W e ha ve de cl in ed to req ui re tha t a di st ric t jud ge “ m us t co m pa re an d co nt ras t

th e de fen da nt un de r co ns id erat io n wit h a si m il ar of fen de r who ha s be en se nt en ced by

an ot he r fed eral jud ge .” Uni te d Stat es v. Barro n, 55 7 F.3d 86 6, 86 9 (8t h Cir. 20 09 ).

“ The se nt e n c i n g p r act ic es of on e di st ric t co ur t are no t a refe ren ce po in t fo r ot he r

co ur ts .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sol iz , 85 7 F .3d 78 1, 7 83 (8t h C ir. 2 01 7) . Thu s, Harv ey ’s

rel ia nc e on § 35 53 (a)( 6) to es ta bl is h an ab us e of di sc r e t i o n ba se d on se nt en ci ng

di sc rep an ci es be twee n di st ric t jud ge s “ is m is pl aced .” Uni te d St at es v. McEl de rry

,

87 5 F

. 3 d 8 6 3

, 8 6 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ), cert . d en ie d, No. 17 -8 34 8 (U.S. May 1 4, 20 18 ).

H arv ey ’s req ue st to su bp oe na nu m ero us PSRs in Pro ba ti on Offi ce f i l e s i s

co nt ra ry to the “ lon gst an din g j udi ci al vi ew th at co nf id en ti al it y sh ou ld be m ai nt ai ne d.”

-4

-Uni te d St at es v. Sh afer

, 60 8 F.3 d 10 56

, 10 66 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); se e Uni te d St at es Dep t.

of Ju st ic e v. Ju li an

, 48 6 U.S. 1, 12 (1 98 8)

. “ [I]nfo rm at io n co nt ai ne d in a pr es en te nc e

rep or t sh ou ld no t be di sc lo se d to th ird pa rti es un le ss li fti ng co nf id en ti al it y is req ui red

to m eet th e en ds of jus ti ce.” Uni te d S t a te s v. Fi gu rs ki , 5 45 F.2 d 38 9, 39 1 (4 th Ci r.

19 76 ). Here, Harv ey ’s di sc ov ery m ot io n st at ed th at th e is su e he “ se ek s to ex pl or e is

th e la ck of co ns is te nc y in th e gr an ti ng of do wnwar d de pa rtu res an d va ria nc es am on g

an d be twee n t h e ju d g e s in th is Dis tri ct .” As we ha ve ex pl ai ne d, di sc ov ery fo r th at

pu rp os e was pr op erl y de ni ed

. Eve n in cas es whe re de fen da nt s ha ve rai se d th e m or e

rel ev an t is su e of se nt en ci n g d i s p ari ty am on g co -d efen da nt s or th os e who sh ared

co m m o n o f f en se co nd uc t, we ha ve he ld th at th is “ do es no t au to m at ic al ly crea te a

‘spe ci al ne ed ’ to rel eas e a PSR in or de r to al lo w di sp ari ty arg um en ts un de r 18 U.S.C.

§ 35 53 (a)( 6) .” Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 62 4 F.3 d 88 9, 89 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). In th es e

ci rcu m st an ces , t he di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on th a t i t w o u ld tre at Harv ey ’s s en te nc e as

“ un iq ue ” m ean t th e en ds of jus ti ce di d no t req u i r e di sc lo su re of th es e co nf id en ti al

do cu m en ts to Harv ey ’s att or ne y an d h is ex pe rts . There was n o a bu se of d is cret io n.

2. Harv ey ne xt arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n on rem an d whe n

it di sm is se d Co un t I I

, t h e le ss er in cl ud ed po ss es si on of fen se , r at he r th an th e Co un t

I rece ip t of

fen se ba se d on th e sa m e of fen s e c o n d uc t, a de ci si on th at res ul te d in a

hi gh er bas e of

fen se le ve l. A s t he Fo ur th Cir cu it no te d in affi rm in g di sm is sa l of the

le ss er-i nc lu de d ch il d po rn og rap hy po ss es si on of fen se in Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, th e

gr eat weig ht of au th or it y ho ld s th at th e pr op er rem ed y in th is si tu at io n is to le av e th e

co nv ic ti on fo r th e gr eat er of fen se in ta ct

. 70 1 F.3 d 12 0, 12 8 (4 th Ci r. 20 12 ), an d cas es

ci te d. Harv ey

co m pl ai ns th e d is tri ct co ur t g av e n o e xp la na ti on for it s di sc ret io na ry

de ci si on

. W e di sa gr ee. The co ur t ex pr es sl y reco gn iz ed th at ou r rem an d m ean t it “ ha d

to se le ct on e of th e two co un ts ,” an d no te d it ha d rev ie wed th e r e c o r d an d fo un d

Harv ey gu il ty of th e gr eat er of fen se

. The ab ov e-q uo te d fact s fro m ou r pr io r op in io n

m ak e cl ear th at Harv ey ’s of fen se in cl ud ed rece iv in g chi ld po rn og rap hy on m ul ti pl e

de vi ces an d tra ns f

e r r i n g ch il d po rn og rap hy v id eo s be twee n de vi ces

. The re was no

ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n v acat in g t he les se r-i nc lu de d p os se ss io n o ffen se

.

-5

-3. Harv ey ne xt ar g u e s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by ap pl y in g “ co ng res si on al ly

m an uf act ur ed ” ch il d po rn og rap hy gu id el in es th at were no t th e pr od uc t of Sen te nc in g

Co m m is si on in ve st ig at io n, ex pe rie nc e, or ex pe rti se

. This co nte nti on, w he n ad dr es se d

to an ap pe ll at e co u r t

, i s w i t ho ut m eri t. “ As we ha ve st at ed rep eat ed ly, ev en if a

di st ric t co ur t m ay di sr eg a r d th e ch il d po rn og rap hy se nt en ci ng gu id el in es on po li cy

gr ou nd s, it is no t req ui red to do so

. . . . [O]ur ap pe ll at e ro le is li m it ed to de te rm in in g

th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a sp eci fic se nt en ce where th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es

ran ge was d e t e r mi n e d in acco rd an ce wit h [U.S.S.G.] § 2G2 .2.” Uni te d St at es v.

Bu rn s, 83 4 F.3 d 88 7, 88 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (ci ta ti on s an d qu ot at io ns om it te d)

. Harv ey

do es no t arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly erre d in a p p l yin g an y sp eci fic

en ha nc em en t, o nl y

th at it sh ou ld ha ve ig no red th em all

.

4. Fin al ly, Harv ey arg ue s th e di st ric t cou rt d id no t m ak e se nt en ci ng fin di ng s

su ffi ci en t to pe rm it m ean in gf ul ap pe ll at e rev ie w an d im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le se nt en ce in gr an ti ng a ne arl y 50 % do wnwar d va ria nc e. On th is

ex te ns iv e se nt en ci ng reco rd , th es e co nt en ti on s ar e wit ho ut m eri t.

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

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

-6

-