FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 16587 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 7 7 - C R - 3 - L AC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A R K S E G A L L A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 18, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A j ury c on vi ct ed M ark S egal l a of use of a c om pu t ert o att em ptt o p er suade, i nd uce, ent i ce , or coer ce a per son u nd er18 ye ar s of a ge t o eng age i n sexual a c tiv ity , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 2 2 ( b ) , a n d o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 51 2(b)(2)(B). T he di stri ctcourtca l cul at ed an advi sory Gu i d e l i n e r a n g e o f

7 8 - 9 7 m o n th s ’ i m p r i s o n m e n t , a n d s e n t e n c e d S e g a l l at o two c onc urr e nt120- m onth t e rm s of i m pr i s onm e nt . S e ga l l ar a i s e s thr e e e rr or s tha the cont ends com bi ned t o render hi s s ent ence un re as on abl e. H e a rgues thatthe di stri ct c our tc om m i tt e d a n e rr orof l a w by r e l y i ng on hi s i nt e ntt o c om m i tthe § 2422( b) o ffen se an d th e t i m e fram e i n w h i ch h e t al k ed t o th e u n d erco v er o ffi cer p o si n g as a 15 -y ea r- ol d g i rl , as these w er e notaggravat i ng ci rc um st ance s. S egal l a a l so ar gu es tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tm a de af a c tua l f i ndi ng i n s uppor tof

i t s s e nt e nc e tha tw a s not s u p p o r te d b y th e r e c o r d a n d f a ile d to c o n s id e re v id e n c e h e p r e s e n te d in m itig a tio n . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf

o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs a ts e nt e nc i ng f

orc l e a re rr or a nd the appl i c a t i on of

the l a w t o the f

a c t s de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C l a y , 483 F . 3d 7 3 9 , 7 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . W e r e v ie w th e f in a l s e n te n c e f

o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . U n ite d S ta te s v . W in in g e a r , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e d o n o t, how e ve r , appl y thi s s t a nda r d t o e a c h i ndi vi dua l de c i s i on m a de dur i ng the s e n te n c in g p r o c e s s . I d .3

U nr e a s onabl e ne s s m a y a r i s e , r e ga r dl e s s of the l e ngth of

the s e nt e nc e , “ i f

the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s e le c tio n o f th e s e n te n c e w a s s u b s ta n tia lly a f f e c te d b y its c ons i de r a t i on of

i m pe rm i s s i bl e f

a c t or s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1361 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , c e r t . di s m i s s e d, 127 S . C t . 3040 ( 2007) . W e r e vi e w de novo w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d a n im p e rm is s ib le f a c to ra t s e n te n c in g , a s it is aq u e s tio n o f

la w . I d . a t 1 3 6 1 - 6 2 . W h e n r e v ie w in g s u c h ac la im , th e p a r ty chal l engi ng the se nt ence bear s the i ni t i al bu rden of es t abl i shi ng thatthe court c o n s id e r e d a n im p e rm is s ib le f a c to r . I d . a t 1 3 6 1 . I f

s u c h a n e rr o re x is ts , a n d if it w a s p r e s e rv e d f

o rap p e a l, w e w ill v a c a te th e s e n te n c e a n d r e m a n d , u n le s s th e p a r ty d e f e n d in g th e s e n te n c e e s tab lis h e s th a t th e e rr o ris h a rm le s s . I d . a t 1 3 6 2 . I n th is ca se , S egal l a obj ec t ed t o the l ength o f hi s 120 -m on th sent ence as un re as on abl e, s p e c if ic a lly c o n te n d in g th a t th e c o u r t s h o u ld h a v e g iv e n m o r e w e ig h t to h is otherw i se go od backgrou nd , w ork h i st ory, and l ac k o f asi gn i fi ca ntcr i m i nal r e c or d. H ow e ve r , he di d notc ont e nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tl e ga l l y e rr e d by consi deri ng hi s i nt entor the t i m e f ra m e of hi s a ct i vi t i es . A cc ordi ng l y, w e r evi ew thi s c l a i m f

orpl a i n e rr or . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 (11th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 54 5 U . S . 11 27 (200 5). U nd erpl ai n err or re vi ew , there m ustbe: (1) a n err or; (2) thati s pl ai n; (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s; and (4) that seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, i n t eg ri ty, o r p u b l i c rep u t at i o n o f j u d i ci al p ro ceed i n g s.4

I d . I n o r d e rf

o ra n e rr o rto b e p la in , it m u s t b e o b v io u s o rc le a ru n d e rc u rr e n t la w . U n ite d S ta te s v . G e rr o w , 2 3 2 F .3 d 8 3 1 , 8 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . O n e o f th e f

ac ts th e d istrict co u rt co n sid er ed w h en d eter m in in g S eg alla’s s e nt e nc e w a s S e ga l l a ’ s c onve r s a t i ons w i th the unde r c ove rof f i c e rpos i ng a s a15- y e a r - ol d gi r l , e xpl a i ni ng tha tthe dur a t i on of tha tc onduc tha d t o be c ons i de r e d, a nd it d e m o n s tr a te d S e g a lla ’s in te n t to c o m m it th e o f f e n s e in th is c a s e . T h e e rr o r , if a n y , b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s n o t p la in . “[ W ]h e r e th e e x p lic it la n g u a g e o f as ta tu te or rul e does notspec i fi ca l l y r es ol ve an i ss ue, there ca n b e no p l ai n err or w here there i s no p re ce dentfr om the S up re m e C ou rtor thi s C ou rtdi re ct l y r es ol vi ng i t . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. L ej ar de-R ada, 31 9 F . 3d 12 88 , 12 91 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). W hen c ons i de r i ng the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , the c our ts ha l l c ons i de rthe na tur e a nd ci rc um st ance s of the offens e. S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1). W e r ec ent l y r ej ec t ed the ar gu m entthatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y r el i ed up on cond uctthathad b ee n t a ke n i nt o a c c ounti n i m pos i ng aG ui de l i ne s e nha nc e m e nt , not i ng tha tthe defe nd ant“ po i nt s t o n o autho ri ty thatdeem s i ti m perm i ss i bl e f or the di stri ctcourt t o al so have consi dere d thi s c on du cti n i m po si ng a var i ance i n l i gh tof the fa ct ors se tforth i n § 35 53 (a ). ” U ni t ed S t at es v. A m edeo, 48 7 F . 3d 82 3, 83 3 (11 th C i r. 2007) . A l s o, the r e i s no pr e c e de ntf r om the S upr e m e C our torthi s C our thol di ng tha tthe s e f

a c t or s a r e i m pr ope rorhol di ng tha tf a c t or s a l r e a dy a c c ount e d f orby the5

G ui de l i ne s a r e i m pr ope rf a c t or s i n anon- G ui de l i ne s e nt e nc e . S e e C l a y , 483 F . 3d a t745 ( a ddr e s s i ng r e l i gi on a nd pos t - of f e ns e r e habi l i t a t i on) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L or e nz o, 471 F . 3d 1219, 1221 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( a ddr e s s i ng pos t - s e nt e nc i ng be ha vi or ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a s tr o, 455 F . 3d 1249, 1252- 53 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( a ddr e s s i ng e a r l y di s pos i t i on pr ogr a m s ) ; W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d a t1364- 70 ( a ddr e s s i ng the pow de ra nd c r a c k c oc a i ne s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i ty a nd di s a gr e e m e nt w i th the ca re eroffe nd erenhancem ent ). W e now turn t o S e ga l l a ’ s r e m a i ni ng a r gum e nt s . W he n e va l ua t i ng the r e a s o n ab l e n e s s o f

as e n t e n c e , w e c o n s i d e rth e f a c t o r s o u t l i n e d i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e a s o n s f o rim p o s in g th e p a r tic u la rs e n te n c e . W illia m s , 4 5 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 0 - 6 1 . T h e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s ta k e in to a c c o u n t: ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the hi s t ory a nd ch aract eri st i cs o f th e d efen d an t ; (2 ) th e n eed t o refl ectth e seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se, t o p ro m o t e resp ectfo r th e l aw , an d t o p ro v i d e j u st p u n is h m e n t f

o rth e o f f e n s e ; ( 3 ) th e n e e d f

o rd e te rr e n c e ; ( 4 ) th e n e e d to prot ec tthe pu bl i c; (5) the need t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded e duc a t i ona l orvoc a t i ona l tr a i ni ng orm e di c a l c a r e ; ( 6) the ki nds of s e nt e nc e s a va i l abl e ; ( 7) the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge ; ( 8) pe r t i ne nt p o lic y s ta te m e n ts o f

th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n ; ( 9 ) th e n e e d to a voi d unw a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i e s ; a nd ( 10) the ne e d t o pr ovi de r e s titu tio n to v ic tim s . U n i t e d St a t e s v . Ta l l e y , 4 3 1 F. 3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c i t i n g 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ) . W ith r e s p e c t to th e f in a l s e n te n c e , “th e r e is ar a n g e o f r e a s o n ab le s e nt e nc e s f

r om w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tm a y c hoos e ” a nd the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng6

thatthe se nt ence i s unrea sonabl e i n l i gh tof the re cord and the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors l i e s w i th the pa r ty c ha l l e ngi ng the s e nt e nc e . I d. a t788. “ W he n r e vi e w i ng the l ength o f ase nt ence for r ea sonabl enes s, w e w i l l re m and for res ent enci ng i f w e a re l ef tw i th the defi ni t e a nd fi rm conv i ct i on thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed a c l ea r error of j ud gm enti n w ei gh i ng the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors by a rr i vi ng ata s ent ence that l i es ou t si de the ra ng e of r ea sonabl e s ent ence s di ct at ed by the fa ct s of the ca se . ” W i l l i am s, 45 6 F . 3d at13 63 . “ T he w ei gh tt o b e a cc orded any gi ven § 35 53 (a ) f a c t o ri s am a tt e rc o m m i tt e d t o th e s o u n d d i s c r e t i o n o f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t [ , ] ” a n d we

“ w i l l nots ubs t i tut e ourj udgm e nti n w e i ghi ng the r e l e va ntf a c t or s be c aus e our re vi ew i s notde no vo . ” I d. (c i t at i on , qu ot at i on m arks, and al t er at i on om i tt ed). T he di s tr i c tc our tl i s t e d anum be rof f a c t s tha ti tc ons i de r e d w he n i m pos i ng S e ga l l a ’ s s e nt e nc e . I ts t a t e d tha tone f a c tw a s S e ga l l a ’ s a dm i s s i on i n c ha t s tha the m etun dera ge gi rl s he t al ked t o o n the com pu t erand thathe previ ou sl y had se x w i th the s e unde r a ge gi r l s . T he pa r t i e s a gr e e tha tthi s f i ndi ng i s nots uppor t e d by the re cord. H ow ever , evi dence pres ent ed attri al i nd i ca t es thatS egal l a di sc usse d havi ng se x w i th a 13 -y ea r- ol d g i rl , w ho m he m eton a bl i nd dat e. T he di stri ctcourt di s c us s e d anum be rof

othe rf a c t s tha ti nf

orm e d i t s s e nt e nc e a nd w e c a nnot concl ud e thatthe di sc re panci es betw ee n the court ’ s s t at em entand the re cord e vi de nc e a s t o thi s s i ngl e f a c t“ i nf e c t e d the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s ba l a nc i ng of the7

§ 3553( a ) f

a c t or s a nd pr ovi de s a n i ns uf f i c i e ntba s i s f

ori m pos i ng anon- G ui de l i ne s e n te n c e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . G u id ry , 4 6 2 F .3 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 7 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . S e g a lla a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e r e w a s n o e v id e n tia ry s up p o r t f o rth e tru th f

u ln e s s o f th is s ta te m e n t, n o tin g th a t w h a t h e s a id is n o t tru e ju s t b e c au s e h e s a id it o n th e in te rn e t. H ow ever , the di stri ctcourtspec i fi ca l l y r ef erre d t o the fa ctthatthi s w as an a d m is s io n b y S e g a lla , a n d it w a s u p to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to d e te rm in e c r e d ib ility . S e ga l l a ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o c ons i de ra l l of

the m itig a tin g e v id e n c e r e la tin g to h is h is to ry a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s u n d e r§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) is b as ed o n th e f

o ll o w in g co m m en t b y th e d istrict co u rt in re sp o n se to S eg alla’s obj e c t i on tha tthe c our ts houl d ha ve gi ve n m or e w e i ghtt o hi s othe rw i s e good ba c kgr ound, w ork hi s t ory , a nd l a c k of as i gni f i c a ntc r i m i na l r e c or d: [ A ] l l of thos e ba c kgr ound m a tt e r s a r e i nt e r e s t i ng, c e r t a i nl y , tha tthe c o u r t h a s r e v ie w e d , b u t I h a v e to d e a l w ith w h a t th e d e f e n d a n t is p r e s e n tly , r e g a r d le s s o f

w h a t c au s e d h im to b e th e r e o ra n y s e e m in g ly m i t i ga t i ng m a tt e r s i n hi s pa s t . H e s t i l l c a m e t o thi s pos i t i on i n l i f e a nd c r i m e s . B utthe y ’ r e not e d f orthe r e c or d. W hi l e thi s s t at em enti s s om ew hatvagu e i tm ustbe consi dere d i n con t ext . Itw as m ade i n res po nse t o S egal l a’ s a ss ert i on thathi s m i t i gat i ng evi dence w as no tgi ven e n o u g h w e ig h t. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e c o u r t w a s in d ic a tin g th a t it c o n s id e r e d th is evi dence, bu tfoun d thati tdi d n otj ust i fya l ow erse nt ence i n l i gh tof other p e r tin e n t § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s . T hu s, S egal l a has fa i l ed t o est abl i sh thatthe re sul t i ng se nt ence w as8

un re as on abl e. C f. A m edeo, 48 7 F . 3d at83 3 (re j ec t i ng an ar gu m entthatthe di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t c o n s id e rc e r ta in m itig a tin g e v id e n c e b a s e d o n th e c o u r t’s f a ilu r e to m e nt i on the e vi de nc e a nd the n s t a t i ng, “ M or e i m por t a nt , A m e de o ha s not pe r s ua de d us tha tthe r e s ul t i ng s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the pa r t i c ul a r l y e gr e gi ous c i r c um s t a nc e s of thi s c a s e a nd the l i m i t e d m i t i ga t i ng va l ue of the e vi de nc e he pr e s e nt e d. ” ) . I n a ddi t i on t o c ons i de r i ng S e ga l l a ’ s a dm i s s i on r e ga r di ng ha vi ng s e x w i th unde r a ge gi r l s , the di s tr i c tc our tdi s c us s e d anum be rof othe rf a c t s i tc ons i de r e d w he n i m pos i ng S e ga l l a ’ s s e nt e nc e , a l l r e l a t i ng t o the ext entof S egal l a’ s a ct i vi t i es and h i s a tt em pt s t o d i spose of e vi dence of hi s c ri m i nal c onduc t . T he c our ta l s o di s c us s e d anum be rof the pe r t i ne nt§ 3553( a ) f a c t or s a nd foun d thatS egal l a posed a physi ca l dang ert o the com m un i ty a tl ar ge as he w as l i k el y t o en g ag e i n si m i l ar co n d u ct . U p o n co n si d erat i o n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors, th e d istrict co u rt’s re as o n s f o r im p o sin g th e s en ten ce , an d th e e x ten t o f S eg alla’s c onduc t , both i n t e rm s of hi s a c t i vi t i e s on the c om put e ra nd hi s a tt e m pt s t o de s tr oy e vi de nc e of

s uc h a c t i vi t i e s , w e c a nnotc onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t“ c om m i tt e d a cl ea r e rr or of j ud gm enti n w ei gh i ng the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors by a rr i vi ng ata s ent ence thatl i es ou t si de the ra ng e of r ea sonabl e s ent ence s di ct at ed by the fa ct s of the ca se . ” W illia m s , 4 5 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 3 . I n lig h t o f

th e f o r e g o in g , S e g a lla ’s s e n te n c e is AF F I RME D.