FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 28, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 15 83 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 09 6- CR- OR L-28 -DAB UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, vers us JAC OB PAUL MARSHALL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 28 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ja co b P au l M ars ha ll ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on an d t he sen te nc e im po se d a fte r he pl ead edgu il ty to at te m pt edrece ip t, re cei pt , andpo ss es si on of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy. Afte r a tho ro ug h re vi ew of th e rec or d, we af

firm . I. Back gr ou nd Dur in g a n i nv es ti ga ti on in to ch il d p orno gr ap hy, the FBI re cei ve d ali stof subs cri be rs to webs it es co nt ai ni ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy or ero ti ca. Thi s l is t i nc lu de d Mar sh al l’s n am e. The F BI al ert edU.S. Pos ta l In sp ect or s, wh o the n s en t M ars ha ll a b ro ch ur e o f se xu al ly exp li ci t DVDs a va il ab le forpu rch as e. Mars ha ll ord ered it em s i nv ol vi ng pre te engi rls , ped op hi li a, an d young tee n g irl s. Th e Po st al Serv ic e m ai le d M ars ha ll th e DVDs h e o rd eredan d t he n e xe cute d asea rchof h is res id en ce pu rs ua ntto a warrant . Mars ha ll waiv edhi s ri gh ts , coo pe rat edwith aut ho rit ie s, an d adm it te d s earc hi ng th e web forch il d p orno gr ap hy andatt em pt in g t o s ub sc rib e to web si te s. He al so adm it te d t ha t h e save d c hi ldpo rn og rap hy on to at l eas t o ne CD orDVD. Aut ho rit ie s o bt ai ne d awarran t t o s earc h M ars ha ll ’s com pu te r an d fo un d th atMars ha ll ha d s to redch il d p orno gr ap hy on30 of h is CDs o r DVDs an d h ad ov er 1 00 m ov ie fil es an d 1 ,00 0 p ic tu re fi le s co nt ai ni ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy. Mar sh al l was in di ct edforan d p le ad edgu il ty to at te m pt edrece ip t an d rece ip t o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy un de r 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 52 A(a)(2 )(B) an d p os se ss io n of ch il d p orno gr ap hy un de r 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 52 A(a)(5 )(B) . Inpre parin g the pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (P SI), the pro ba ti on off ic er cal cu la te d M ars ha ll ’s gu id el in e ran ge us in g aba se off en se lev el of 2 2 u nd er 2U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 , with a2-l ev el in crea se forth e u se of aco m pu te r un de r § 2 G2.2 (b )(6 ). The re su lt in g g ui de li ne ran ge was 9 7 t o 1 21 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. At s en te nc in g, M ars ha ll reque st ed , forth e fi rs t t im e, th athe rece iv e a p sycho se xu al ev al ua ti on . The co urt co nt in ue d t he sen te nc in g h eari ng to al lo w foranev al ua ti on . Barb ara M ara, a l ic en se d p sycho lo gi st , con du ct edth e ev al ua ti onan d co nc lu de d t ha t M ars ha ll ha d p ro bl em s wi th im pu ls e co ntro l an d was ad di ct edto po rn og rap hy andsex . At th e n ex t s en te nc in g h eari ng , Mars ha ll tes ti fie d a nd reque st eda do wnwar d d ep artur e fro m th e g ui de li ne ran ge . The g ov ern m en t op po se d a ny redu ct io n b as edon Mars ha ll ’s hi st ory an d t he res ul ts of t he ev al ua ti on . The co urt d is cu ss edth e fac to rs itco ns id eredan d n ot edth atitha d b een cri ti cal of t he gu id el in es inpa stch il d p orno gr ap hy case s. Bu t the co urt fo un d t ha t th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of M ars ha ll ’s cas e were v ery se rio us an d t he re were qu es ti on s ab ou t the li ke li ho odof r eci di vi sm . The co urt n ot edth atMars ha ll ha d be enaccu se d o f, bu t n otco nv ic te d o f, m ol es ta ti on inth e p as t an d t hi s h adno t st op pe d M ars ha ll ’s in te res t i n c hi ldpo rn og rap hy. Co ns id eri ng th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , th e co urt co nc lu de d t ha t a s en te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in e ran ge was reas on ab le . The co urt the n s en te nc edMars ha ll to 98 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. 3Mar sh al l n ow ap pe al s, ch al le ng in g h is co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e o n t hr ee g ro un ds :

Fi rs t, Ma rs ha ll arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt p la in ly erredby inc reas in g h is off en se le ve l u nd er § 2G2 .2(b )(6 ) fo r us in g aco m pu te r in th e co m

m is si on of t he off

en se be cau se he us edth e co m

pu te r so le ly to p la y

di sc s co nt ai ni ng po rn og rap hy. Seco nd , he a rg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt erredby fail in g t o d ep artfro m th e gu id el in e ran ge . Thir d, h e arg ue s tha t 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 (A) is un co ns ti tu ti on al ly ov erb ro adbe cau se itgi ve s equi va le ntsen te nc es to di st rib ut or s an d re ci pi en ts of ch il d p orno gr ap hy. W e ad dr es s ea chis su e intu rn . II. Dis cu ss io n A. App li cat io n o f U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 (b )(6 ) W e rev ie w th e in te rp ret at io n a ndap pl ic at io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es de no vo , andrev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r. Uni te d St at es v. W

il li ams , 52 7 F .3d12 35 , 12 47 -4 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Whe re a d efen da nt di d n otti m el y

rai se a cl ai m

of e rro r be fo re the di st ric t co urt, h owe ve r, we rev ie w on ly for p la in erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z , 39 8 F .3d12 91 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ An ap pe ll at e co urt m ay no t co rrec t an erro r th e d efen da ntfai le d t o ra is e in th e d is tri ctco urt unl es s the re i s: (1) erro r, (2 ) th atis pl ai n, an d (3 ) th ataffe ct s subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts .” Id. (ci ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. C ot to n , 53 5 U.S. 6 25 , 63 1 (2 00 2) ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns om it te d) . If all th ree fa ct or s ar e m et , we m ay ex erci se 4di sc ret io n a ndco rrec t the erro r if it“ se rio us ly affect s the fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or publ ic rep ut at io n o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Id. (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om itte d) . In o rd er t o m eetth e se co ndpro ng of the pl ai n e rro r te st , an e rro r m us t be “ cl ear u nd er cu rren t l aw.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Olan o , 50 7 U.S. 7 25 , 73 4 (1 99 3) . At the ti m e o f Mar sh al l’s s en te nc in g, § 2G2 .2(b )(6 ) pr ov id edinpa rt t ha t the se nt en ci ng co urt s ho ul d i nc reas e a d efen dant ’s off en se lev el by two “ [i]f th e of fen se in vo lv edth e u se of aco m pu te r oranin te ract iv e co m pu te r se rv ic e fo r th e po ss es si on , trans m is si on , recei pt , or d is tri bu ti on of t he m at eri al .” U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 (b )(6 ). It d idno t ex pl ic it ly addres s wh ethe r m erel y us in g t he co m

pu te r to vi ew ch il d p orno gr ap hy was su ffi ci en t t o qua li fy for th e en ha nc em en t. In20 09 , aft er Ma rs ha ll ’s sen te nc in g, the sec ti on was a m en de d t o a dd , “ orforacce ss in g with i nt en t t o v ie w th e m at eri al .” Id. “ Whe re the ex pl ic itlan gu ag e o f a s ta tu te or ru le do es no t s pe ci fic al ly reso lv e anis su e, th ere c anbe no pl ai n e rro r whe re the re is no pre ced en t fr om

th e Supr em e Co urt o r [u s] di rect ly reso lv in g i t.” Uni te d St at es v. Lej arde -Rad

a , 31 9 F .3d12 88 , 12 91 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Ther efo re, b ecau se th e v ers io n o f § 2 G2.2 (b )(6 ) in effe ctat t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng di d n otde fin it iv el y an swe r th e que st io n ra is edhe re, the re was no pl ai n e rro r in th e ap pl ic at io n o f § 2 G2.2 (b )(6 ). Mo reo ve r, th e PSI s ta te d t ha t M ars ha ll adm it te d t o l aw en fo rcem en t tha t h e 5us eda fi le sh ari ng pro gr am on hi s co m

pu te r to sea rch forch il d p orno gr ap hy and sa ve d i t t o adi sc . Mars ha ll di d n otob ject t o thi s fa ctua l as se rti on inth e PSI, an d th eref or e, fo r th e p ur

po se s o f se nt en ci ng , Mars ha ll adm it te d u si ng hi s co m pu te r fo r th e rec ei ptof c hi ldpo rn og rap hy thr ou gh a fi le sh ari ng pro gr am . Uni te d Sta tes v. W ade , 45 8 F .3d12 73 , 12 77 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (“ [i]t i s the law o f th is cir cu itth ata fai lu re t o o bjec t t o a ll eg at io ns of f actina PSI ad m it s tho se fact s fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es .”). Acco rd in gl y , th e co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f § 2 G2.2 (b )(6 ) was pro pe r.

B. Depa rti ng fro m

th e Gui de li ne Ran ge In Uni te d Sta tes v. Win in ge ar , 42 2 F .3d12 41 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ), we he ldth atwe are wi th ou t juris di ct io n t o c on si de r a d efen da nt ’s app eal of a di sc ret io na ry

de ci si on of t he di st ric t co urt n otto ap pl y a do wnwar d de pa rtu re, s o lo ng as t he di st ric t co urt d idno t i nc orrect ly bel ie ve th atitlac ke d t he au th or it y to ap pl y a de pa rtu re. Id. The re co rdhe re s ho ws tha t the di st ric t co urt was aware o f it s au th or it y

bu t d idno t b el ie ve th e fac ts of t he cas e warra nt eda de pa rtu re. Acco rd in gl y , we lac k juris di ct io n t o c on si de r th is is su e.

C. Co ns ti tu ti on al ity

of § 22 52 A Whe n aco ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e is rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , we ge ne ral ly revi ew on ly for p la in erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. S mith , 45 9 F .3d12 76 , 12 82 -1 28 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) ; se e a ls o Un it ed Stat es v. W

alker , 59 F.3d11 96 , 11 98 6(1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) .

Mar sh al l’s b rie f fai ls to setforth th e b as is of h is co ns ti tu ti on al cla im . The cru x o f hi s ar gu m en t i s tha t the “ st atut e ap pl ie s equa ll y to th os e who rece iv e th e im ag es an d t o t ho se who sen d the m .” Sect io n 2 25 2A( a)(2 )(B) pro vi de s tha t an y pe rs on who kn owi ng ly recei ve s o r di st rib ut es an y m at eri al th at co nt ai ns ch il d p orno gr ap hy tha t h as be enm ai le d, o r us in g a ny m ean s orfaci li ty of in te rs tate or f or ei gn co m

m erce sh ip pe d o r tr an sp orte d i n oraffe ct in g i nt ers ta te or f or ei gn co m

m erce by any

m ean s, i nc lu di ng by com pu te r [i s s ub

ject t o c riminal pro se cu ti on ]. W e h av e n oty etad dr es se d wh ethe r §§ 22 52 A(a)(2 )(B) an d (a )(5 )(B) are ov erb ro ad . The Supr em e Co urt h as he ld , ho wev er, tha t § 22 52 A(a)(3 )(B) , whi ch cri m in al iz es an y

actth atkn owi ng ly “ adve rti se s p ro m ot es , pre se nt s, d is tri bu te s, o r so li ci ts ” ch il d p orno gr ap hy, or m at eri al s b el ie ve d t o b e ch il d p orno gr ap hy, is n ot ov erb ro ad . Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 55 3 U.S. 2 85 , 29 2- 29 3 (2 00 8) . W e co ns tru e Mars ha ll ’s con st itut io na l ch al le ng e to be on e o f equa l pr ot ect io n a ndpro po rti on al ity . Alth ou gh th e ex pl ic itlan gu ag e o f th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e co nt ai ne d i n t he Fo urte en th Am en dm en t ap pl ie s o nl y to th e st at es , Uni te d Sta tes v. Ho us to n , 45 6 F .3d13 28 , 13 35 n.5 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), “ th e Due Pro ces s C laus e o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t i m pl ie dl y im po se s the same

7ob li ga ti on s o n t he fed eral go ve rn m en t as do es th e Equ al Pro te ct io n C laus e o n t he

st at es [.]” Id . Whe re the st atut e atis su e “ do es no t d is cri m in at e o n t he ba si s o f a su sp ectcla ss ifi cat io n o r th e ex erci se of afun dam en ta l ri gh t,” t he ap pr op ria te st an da rdof r ev ie w for

anequa l p ro te ct io n c la im is th e rat io na l b as is tes t . Uni te d St at es v. So lo mon , 84 8 F .2d15 6, 1 57 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). “ To p as s the rat io na l b as is te st , th e le gi sl at io n m

us t h av e a l eg it im at e p ur

po se , anditm

us t h av e b een reas on ab le for

lawm ak ers to be li ev e th atth e u se of t he ch al le ng edcla ss ifi cat io n wou ldpro m ot e th atpu rp os e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. K in g , 97 2 F .2d12 59 , 12 60 (11 th Ci r. 19 92 ). The Eig ht h Am en dm en t p ro vi de s tha t “ [e]xce ss iv e b ai l s ha ll no t b e requi red , no r ex ces si ve fin es im po se d, n orcru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t in fli ct ed .” U.S. Con st . Am en d. VIII . “ Inno n- cap it al cas es , th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t en co m

pa ss es , at m os t, o nl y

a na rro w pro po rti on al it y pri nc ip le .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Br an t , 62 F.3d36 7, 3 68 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). To d et erm in e whe th er anEig ht h Am en dm en t v io la ti onha s o ccu rred , we firs t m us t m ak e “ a th res ho ld de te rm in at io n t ha t the sen te nc e im po se d i s g ro ss ly dis pr op orti on at e to th e of fen se .” Id. Afterwe de te rm in e th atth e se nt en ce i s g ro ss ly dis pr op orti on at e, we m us t co ns id er the sen te nc es im po se d o n o th er cr im in al s i n t he same j ur is di ct io n, an d t he sen te nc es im

po se d fo r th e sa m e cri m e in ot he r juri sd ic ti on s. Id . “ Out si de 8th e co nt ex t o f cap it al puni sh m en t, su cces sf ul ch al le ng es to th e p ro po rti on al it y of se nt en ces are ex ceed in gl y rare ,” la rg el y

be cau se we “ acco rdsubs ta nt ia l d efer en ce to Co ng res s[ ’s] . . . br oa d aut ho rit y to de te rm in e th e types an d l im it s o f pu ni sh m en ts forcri m es .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ra ad , 40 6 F .3d13 22 , 13 23 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on s an d quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . “ Inge ne ral , a se nt en ce wi th in th e li m it s im po se d b y st atut e is ne ithe r ex ces si ve no r cru el an d u nu su al un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. J oh ns on , 45 1 F .3d12 39 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) W e co nc lu de th at§ 2 25 2A( a)(2 )(B) an d (b )(1 ) do no t v io la te equa l pr ot ect io n b y

tre at in g d is tri bu ti on an d re cei ptas e qu iv al en t o ffen se s. Th ere i s a rat io na l b as is fortre at in g the two types of o ffen de rs si mil arl y ; the rece ip t o f ch il d po rn og rap hy, lik e it s d is tri bu ti on , is anact“ in furth eran ce o f ab us e o f ch il dr en .” Nordo th e st atut es vi ol at e n ot io ns of p ro po rti on al it y . Mars ha ll di d n ot de m on st rat e th athi s s en te nc es were g ro ss ly dis pr op orti on at e to hi s o ffen se s. His se nt en ces were wel l b el ow the st atut ory m ax im um of 2 0 years’ im

pr is on m en t, in di cat in g the y

were n ei th er ex ces si ve no r cru el an d u nu su al un de r th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. Insu m , we see no ev id en ce tha t § § 2 25 2A( a)(2 )(B) an d (b )(1 ) are un co ns ti tu ti on al . AFFIRMED.

9