2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-30-2008 

# U SA v . D e nsb e rge r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-2229

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . D e n sbe rg e r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 957. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/957T h e H o n o ra b le P a u l R . M ich e l, C h ief Ju d g e o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls * fort he Feder al C i r cui t , s i tt i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 07- 2229

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M ARK DENSB ERGE R, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 06- cr - 00295- 1) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jam es F . M cC lure

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 15, 2008 Be f o r e : AM BRO , FI SHER a n d M I CH EL, C i r cui tJudges . * ( Fi l ed: J une 30, 2008 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . M ark D ens ber ger , Sr . appea l s the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M id d le D is tr ic t o f

P e n n s y lv a n ia d e n y in g h is m o tio n to d is m is s th e c h a rg e a g a in s t h im . D ens ber geral s o appea l s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence . Forthe fol l ow i ng r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f

f i r m. I . D ens ber gerw as t he adopt i ve fa t herof thr ee boy s , M ark J r . , B ruce, and B r y an D ens ber ger . I n M ay2004, t he ol des ts on, B r y an, cont act ed the Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce t o r epor tthathi s fatherr aped hi m . I n a tw o- page w r i t t en s t at ement , B r y an t ol d t he Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce thats i nce O ct ober1996, w hen he w as thi r t een y ear s ol d, D e n sb e rg e r h a d re p e a ted lyse x u a llya ss a u lted h im a n d h is b ro th e rs. B ry a n a lleg e d th a t h is f a th e r: (1 ) f

o rc e d th e m to p e rf

o rm o ra l an d a n a l se x o n h im a n d o n e a n o th e r f o r b o th th e ir puni s hm entand hi s pl eas ur e, ( 2) vi deot aped manyof the as s aul t s thatoccurr ed dur i ng t he ei ght - y earper i od, and ( 3) i ns t ruct ed hi s s ons t o br i ng gi r l s hom e and ha ve s ex w i t h t hem in th e m a rtial a rts s tu d io (a c o n v e rte d d e tac h e d g a ra g e ) so D e n sb e rg e r c o u ld se c re tly videot ape those sexua l act s. O n M ay15, 2004, a s ear ch w arr antw as exec ut ed on D ens ber ger ’ s hom e i n M i l t on, P e n n sy lv a n ia. A u th o rities re c o v e re d n in e v id e o tap e s d e p ictin g D e n sb e rg e r e n g a g in g in gr aphi c s exual act i vi t yw i t h hi s s ons , hi s s ons engagi ng i n t he s ame act i vi t yw i t h one another , and hi s s ons engagi ng i n s exual act i vi t yw i t h t hr ee mi norfemal es . D ens ber gerD en sb erg er p led g u il tyto 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 1 (b), w h ich p rov ides in p erti n en t part 1 that“[a ] nypar ent. . . w ho know i ngl yperm i t s [a] m i nort o engage i n, ort o as s i s tany otherper s on t o engage i n, s exual l yexpl i ci tconductforthe purpos e of pr oduci ng any vi s ual depi ct i on of s uch conduc ts hal l be puni s hed . . . i f s uch par ent. . . know s orhas r eas on t o know t hats uch vi s ual depi ct i on . . . w as pr oduced us i ng m at er i al s thathave b e e n m a ile d , s h ip p e d , o r t ra n s p o rt e d in in te rs ta te o r f o re ig n c o m m e rc e .” 3 w as char ged underPenns y l vani a l aw w i t h pos s es s i on of chi l d por nogr aphy , i nces t , and r ape. O n J une 28, 2004, D ens ber gerw as r el eas ed on bai l fr om the countyj ai l undert he condi t i on t hathe notcont actanyof the vi ct i m s . L at erthatday , D ens ber gerw as arr es t ed at t empt i ng t o cr os s t he C anadi an bor der . H i s then s event een- y ear - ol d s on, B ruce, w as dr i vi ng a s epar at e vehi cl e a f ew car s behi nd D ens ber ger . B ruce w as det ai ned w hen b o rd e r o f

f icia ls’ s u sp icio n s w e re a ro u se d b yth e f a c t th a t co u rt d o c u m e n ts a n d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 in u n d e c lar e d c a sh w e re in th e v e h icle . D e n sb e rg e r la ter sta ted th a t h e w a s n o t atte m p tin g to fl ee, butw as t aki ng a vac at i on campi ng tr i p. H e cl ai m ed thatthe ca s h w as a r emnantof B ru c e ’s e f

f o rts to g a th e r th e m o n e yto p o st h is f a th e r’s b a il. O n N ovember8, 2004, D ens ber gerent er ed i nt o an agr eementw i t h t he U ni t ed S tate s w h e re b yh e a g re e d to p lea d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f se x u a l ex p lo itatio n o f

c h ild re n in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2251. H i s pl ea w as condi t i onal , r es ervi ng the r i ghtt o appea l an 1 ad v erse ruli n g o n h is pretri al m o ti o n ch all en g ing the c o n sti tuti o n ali tyo f § 2 2 5 1 (b). I n J anuary2007, t he pr obat i on offi cerfi l ed a Pr es ent ence R epor t( PSR ) w i t h t he D i s tr i ctC our t . T he PSR r ecomm ended: ( 1) a tw o- l evel obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce4

en h an ce m en t du e to D en sb erg er’s att em p t t o cro ss the b o rde r i n to C an ad a; (2) a f o u rleve l m u lt iple-victi m en h an ce m en t fo r th e v ideo tape s inv o lving the m ino r fe m ales; (3) a tw o- l evel enhanc ementbeca us e B r y an and Bruc e w er e underthe age of s i xt een w hen the as s aul t s on t hem began; ( 4) a four - l evel enhanc ementbeca us e M ark J r . w as underthe age of tw el ve w hen t he assault s on h i m beg an; ( 5) a tw o-l evel enhan cem ent because D ensberger w as the p arentof the vict i m s; (6) a t w o-l evel enhan cem ent because D ens ber gerknew ors houl d have know n t hathi s s ons , w ho w er e adopt ed betw een the ages of nine and t w el ve an d h ad h i st ori es of n eglectand abu se, w ere vul nerabl e vict i m s; and ( 7) no dow nw ar d adj us t m entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , beca us e al t hough D ens ber gerpl ed gui l t y , att he t i m e the PSR w as s ubm i t t ed he ha d notpr ovi ded the r eques t ed w r i t t en s t at ementabouthi s i nvol vementi n t he off ens e. T he enha ncement s r ecomm ended i n t he PSR l ed t o a gui del i ne s ent ence of 324- 405 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . H ow ever , the s t atut orym axi m um i s tw entyy ear s , w hi ch adjust ed the gu i deli ne sentence t o 2 40 m on t hs. T he D i s t r i ctC our tacc ept ed the fi ndi ngs of the PSR i n ful l . U nderthe Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s, th e f

e d e ra l se n ten c e w a s re q u ire d to b e se rv e d c o n c u rre n tlyw ith D ens ber ger ’ s s t at e s ent ence . U . S. S. G . § 5G 1. 3( b) . T her efor e, the C our tr educe d t he fede r al s ent ence t o acc ountfort i m e al r eadys erved on the s t at e s ent ence . T he fi nal se n ten c e w a s 2 0 6 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t.5 II. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew o v e r t h e q u e s tio n o f

w h e th e r a s ta tu te is c o n s titu tio n a l. U ni t ed Stat es v. R andol

ph , 364 F . 3 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). F o r sen tenc ing ap p ea ls, w e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overi t s i nt erpr et at i on of the s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s . U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 556, 568- 70 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( en b an c). III . A . D e n sb e rg e r a rg u e s th a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 1 (b ) is u n c o n stitu tio n a l b e c a u se it fa lls out s i de the s cope of

C ongr es s ’ pow er s underthe C om m er ce Cl aus e. Sect i on 2251( b) penal i zes a par ent ’ s know i ng perm i s s i on of a c hi l d’ s part i ci pat i on i n t he cr eat i on of a “vi s ual depi ct i on [of c hi l d por nogr aphythat ] w as pr oduced us i ng m at er i al s thathave be en m ai l ed, s hi pped ort r ans por t ed i n i nt er s t at e orfor ei gn comm er ce byanym eans . ” D e n sb e rg e r a ss e rts th a t U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez , 514 U . S. 549 ( 1995) , and U ni t ed Stat es v. Mor r is on , 529 U . S. 598 ( 2000) , r enderthi s s t atut e uncons t i tut i onal on i t s fac e and a s a p p l i e d t o h i m. W e d is a g re e . Lopezand Mor r is on s t ruck dow n pr ovi s i ons thathad onl yan a tten u a ted lin k to in ter sta te c o m m e rc e . In a p u b lish e d p o st- Mor r is on d ec isi o n , h o w ev er, w e c o n c lu d e d th a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 1 w a s c o n s titu tio n a l u n d e r t h e C o m m e rc e C la u s e .6

U n itedS ta tes v . G a lo , 239 F. 3d 572, 576 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . R o d ia , 194 F. 3d 465, 468 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ) . O urconcl us i on w as bas ed on the r eas oni ng that “C ongr es s r at i onal l ycoul d have be l i eved thati ntr as t at e pos s es s i on of pornogr aphyhas s ubs t ant i al eff

ect s on i nt er s t at e comm er ce. ” I d. at575. O uranal y s i s i n G a lo i s but t r es s ed bythe s ubs equentcas e of G onz al es v. R ai ch , 545 U . S. 1, 17 ( 2005) . I n R ai ch , t he Supr eme C our trul ed thati tw as w i t hi n t he fe der al go vernm ent’ s pow er t o regulat e t he g row i ng of m ari j uan a for ho m e con sum pti on becau se o f th e lik e lih o o d th a t th is in tr a s ta te a c tiv ity c o u ld a f f e c t in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . I d. at23. I n s um , D ens ber ger ’ s ar gum ent– t hathi s pur el yi ntr as t at e ac t i vi t ycannotbe reg u lat ed b yC o n g ress u n d er Lopezand Mor r is on – i s di r ect l yi n oppos i t i on t o contr ol l i ng pr ece dentand i s t her efor e unava i l i ng. B . In a d d itio n to h is c o n s titu tio n a l a rg u m e n t, D e n s b e rg e r a p p e a ls h is s e n te n c e . S p ec ifi ca ll y , h e a p p ea ls th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s find ing s at sen tenc ing w ith reg ard to M ark J r . ’ s age, the mul t i pl e- vi ct i m cal cul at i on, obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce, and the ac cept ance - ofr es pons i bi l i t yr educt i on. 1 . D en sb erg er a rgu es th at th e D istri ct C o u rtfa il ed to es tablish tha t M ark Jr. ’s sta tem e n ts w e re su f

f icie n tlyre liab le. U .S .S .G . § 6 A 1 .3 (a ) (“ In re so lv in g a n yd isp u te conce rni ng a fa ct ori m por t antt o t he s ent enci ng det erm i nat i on, the courtm aycons i der7

r el evanti nform at i on w i t houtr egar d t o i t s admi s s i bi l i t y. . . , pr ovi ded thatthe i nform at i on has s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t yt o s uppor ti t s pr obabl e ac cur acy . ”) . T her efor e, he s t at es thatt he C our ti m pr oper l yappl i ed the tw o- l evel enhanc ementbas ed on i t s fi ndi ng thatM ark J r . w as undert w el ve y ear s ol d w hen the abus e bega n. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r. M a rk Jr. a n d h is b ro th e rs m a d e sim ilar s tate m e n ts th a t th e a b u s e s ta rt e d w ith in m o n th s o f b e in g a d o p te d a n d th e f ilm in g s h o rt ly th e re a f

te r. Si nce M ark J r . w as adopt ed atage ni ne, thes e s t at ement s s uppor ta fi ndi ng thathe w as u n d er the ag e o f tw elve w h en h e w as v ict im ized . D en sb erg er p o ints t o n o rec o rd e v id e n c e th a t w o u ld u n d e rm in e th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s d e c is io n to a p p ly th e e n h a n c e m e n t. D esp it e h is argu m en ts t o the c o n tr ary , the b roth ers’ statem en ts establish the n ec essa ry re liab ili tya n d a c c u ra c yn e e d e d to a p p lyth e f o u r-le v e l se n ten c in g e n h a n c e m e n t. 2 . T her e w as no l egal orfac tual err ori n t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o appl ythe tw o- l evel obs t ruct i on- of- j us t i ce e nhance m ent . D ens ber gerw as det ai ned w hi l e att empt i ng to c ro ss th e C a n a d ian b o rd e r. H e a rg u e s th a t th is w a s n o t an a ttem p t to f lee , b u t a campi ng t r i p. H ow ever , i tw as notcl ear l yerr oneous forthe D i s t r i ctC our tt o fi nd thi s w as no or di narycampi ng t r i p. D ens ber gerhad bee n r el eas ed fr om the countyj ai l on bai l t hat d a y , an d h e a n d h is s o n B ru c e w e re sto p p e d a s th e ya ttem p ted to c ro ss in to C a n a d a in di ffe r entcar s . T her e w as $10, 000 i n undecl ar ed ca s h i n B ruce’ s car , B ruce c oul d not id e n tifyw h e re th e yw e re g o in g , the re w a s n o v a lid e x p lan a tio n f o r ta k in g tw o se p a ra te8

vehi cl es , and more over , D ens ber gerw as notperm i t t ed t o cont actB ruce a s a condi t i on of h is b a il. A n at t empt t o obs t ructa s t at e pr os ecut i on cons t i tut es obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce i n t he fede r al m att eri f ther e i s a “ne xus betw een the def endant ’ s conductand the i nves t i gat i on, pr os ecut i on, ors ent enci ng of the fe der al offe ns e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jenk i ns , 275 F. 3d 283, 291 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I n Jenk i ns , w e conc l uded thata def endant ’ s fai l ur e t o appea rat the s tat e c o u rtp roc ee d ing h ad n o ef fe ct on the f

ed era l i n v esti g ati o n an d there fo re w a rr a n te d n o e n h a n c e m e n t. I d. I n thi s cas e, unl i ke Jenk i ns , the D i s t r i ctC our tfound that D ens ber ger ’ s fl i ghtw oul d have obs t ruct ed both t he s t at e and f eder al i nves t i gat i ons . T he enhanc ementappl i es equal l yt o t hos e w ho onl yat t empt t o obs t ructj us t i ce a nd thos e w ho s ucce ed. T he fa ctt hatD ens ber gerdi d notes cape does notr enderthe enha ncement in a p p lica b le, a n d th e C o u rt d id n o t er r in im p o sin g it. 3 . D e n sb e rg e r a d v a n c e s p u re lyf a c tu a l ar g u m e n ts in h is a ttac k o n th e m u lti p le- v ictim enhanc ementt hatw as bas ed on the vi deot api ng of the thr ee mi norfemal es . H e s t at es t hat h e w a s n o t in v o lv e d in th e tap in g , an d h e p o in ts o u t th a t so m e o f th e e v id e n c e su p p o rts hi s cl ai m . H ow ever , t he conf l i ct i ng t es t i m onyhe ci t es does notdemonstr at e cl earerr or on t he partof the D i s t r i ctC our t . T he C our texer ci s ed i t s fac t - fi ndi ng funct i on and c o n c lu d e d th a t c e rt a in p o rt io n s o f th e e v id e n c e w e re m o re c re d ib le th a n o th e r p o rt io n s . T he C our tfound the s ons ’ s t at ement s cr edi bl e w hen theyr epor t ed that( 1) thei rfather9

i n s tru c t e d t h e m t o b r i n g g i r l s b a c k t o th e ma r t i a l a r t s s tu d i o a n d h a v e s e x wi t h th e m, ( 2) t hei rfathers how ed them how t o s etup t he conc eal ed ca m er a, and ( 3) thei rfatherus ed the tap es a s “in stru cti o n v ideo s. ” T h e C o u rtd id n o t fi n d cre d ible the s o n s’ co n tr ad ict o ry sta tem e n ts th a t th e ir f

a th e r w a s n o t in v o lv e d in th e v id e o tap in g . B e c a u se th e C o u rt d id n o t cle a rlye rr, w e w ill n o t d istu rb th e a p p lica tio n o f th is s e n ten c in g e n h a n c e m e n t. D ens ber gerr eques t s t hatw e adoptthe vi ew expr es s ed bythe di s s enti n G r i erand appl ys tr i ct ers t andar ds of evi dent i arys uppor tfors ent enci ng enhanc ement s . Fol l ow i ng o u r I n te rn a l O p e ra tin g P ro c e d u re s , w e w ill n o t o v e rr u le a p ri o r p re c e d e n tia l d e c is io n . A di s tr i ctcourtappl i es s ent enci ng enhanc ement s us i ng a pr eponder ance - of- t he- evi dence s ta n d a rd . G r i er , 475 F. 3d at568. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti n t hi s cas e appl i ed the pr oper bur den of pr oof. 4 . F in a lly , D e n sb e rg e r a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in n o t re d u c in g h is se n ten c e b ytw o lev e ls f o r a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty . T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in w ith h o ld in g th e se n ten c e re d u c tio n . T h e C o u rt b a se d th is d e c isio n o n th e c o m m e n tar yto the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , w hi ch s t at es that“a de fenda ntw ho fal s el ydeni es , or fr i vol ous l ycont es t s , r el evantconductthatthe courtdet erm i nes t o be true has act ed i n a m an n er inc o n sist en t w ith ac ce p tanc e o f re sp o n sibil ity . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1 . 1 co m m en t 1(a). M e re lya g re e in g to a c o n d iti o n a l g u iltyp lea d o e s n o t d e f in iti v e lye sta b lish th a t a d e f e n d a n t is e n title d to a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n f o r a c c e p ta n c e o f

re s p o n s ib ility. See U

ni t ed10

Stat es v. C ecc ar ani , 98 F. 3d 126, 129 ( 3d C i r . 1996) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded that D e n sb e rg e r f

riv o lo u slyc o n tes ted h is s o n ’s a g e a t th e tim e o f th e o f f e n se s. T h is concl us i on w as notcl ear l yerr oneous , s i nce D ens ber ger ’ s ar gum entthatther e w as no evi dence of the vi ct i m s ’ ages fl ew i n t he fa ce of the evi dence , i ncl udi ng the dat es on s om e of the vi deos and the vi ct i m s ’ cons i s t entt es t i m ony . T her efor e, w e w i l l aff i r m t he C our t ’ s r efus al t o appl yt he ac cept ance - of- r es pons i bi l i t yr educt i on. I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.