T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. MAR K R US S E L L P S I C K, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10132 D . C . N o . 3 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 0 7 4 - H D MR A M -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da H ow a r d D . M c K i bbe n, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r8, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , B E R Z O N , an d C A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M a rkR u s s e ll P s ic kap p e a ls h is 6 3 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

c h ild pornogr aphy , 18 U . S . C . § 2252( a ) ( 5) ( B ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e a f

f i rm. 

# FI LED MA Y24 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

P s i c k a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n hol di ng tha tthe S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s d e te rm in e th e p r e s u m p tiv e s e n te n c e a n d th e r e b yr e q u ir e d h im to s h o u ld e rth e b u r d e n to p e r s u a d e th e c o u rt to s e n te n c e b e lo w th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e . P s ic kr e lie s o n s e v e r a l d is c r e te s ta te m e n ts m a d e b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt. R e a d in c ont e xt , how e ve r , thos e s t a t e m e nt s s i m pl ys how tha t , a f t e rdi s c us s i ng the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d P si ck t o a l ow -e nd G ui del i nes s e nt e nc e i n l i ghtof

the m i ne - run na tur e of

the c a s e . P s i c k c onc e de s a s m uc h. T he c ourt ’ s appr oa c h w a s c ons i s t e ntw i th G al l v. U ni ted Stat es , 55 2 U . S . 38 (200 7), a nd U n ite d S ta te s v . Ca r ty , 5 2 0 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 9 3 ( 9 th C ir2 0 0 8 ) , c e r t. de n ie d Za v a la v. U ni ted Stat es , 55 3 U . S . 10 61 (200 8). T here w as no procedural error. P s i c k f urthe ra r gue s tha tthe c hi l d pornogr aphy G ui de l i ne , U . S . S . G . § 2G 2. 2, i s notbase d o n em pi ri ca l dat a and nat i on al experi ence . A ft er Ki m brou gh v. U ni ted Stat es , 552 U . S . 85 ( 2007) , the di s tr i c tc ourtc a n di s a gr e e w i th § 2G 2. 2 ba s e d on pol i c y a c r os s the boa r d, i ns t e a d of m a ki ng a n i ndi vi dua l i z e d de t e rm i na t i on tha tthe G u id e lin e s y ie ld a n e x c e s s iv e s e n te n c e in ap a rtic u la rc a s e . See U ni ted Stat es v. H e nde rs on , N o. 09 –5 05 44 , — F . 3d — , 20 11 W L 16 13 41 , at*7 –8 (9th C i r. A pr. 2 9 , 2 0 1 1 ) ( s o h o ld in g ) . P s ic kd o e s n o t a r g u e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile d to reco g n i ze i t s Ki m br ough se nt enci ng autho ri ty. R ather, he ar gu es thatthe di stri ct c o u rt’s r e f

u s a l to d is r e g a r d § 2 G 2 .2 o n p o lic yg r o u n d s r e s u lte d in as u b s ta n tiv e ly3

u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e . B u t ad is tr ic t c o u rt’s au th o r ityto d is a g r e e w ith § 2 G 2 .2 in c lu d e s th e au th o r ityto a g r e e w ith it. Se e id . a t*8. F i nal l y, P si ck ar gu es thati n fai l i ng t o sent ence hi m bel ow the G ui del i nes r a nge , the di s tr i c tc ourtc r e a t e d unw a rr a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i e s i n vi ol a t i on of 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) . See U n ite d S ta te s v . R in g

g o ld , 57 1 F . 3d 94 8, 95 1 (9th C i r. 2009) (S ec t i on 35 53 (a )( 6) re qu i re s di stri ctcourt s t o con si der s ent enci ng di spar i t i es am on g si m i l ar l y s i tuat ed defendant s. ). P s i c k c ont e nds tha tthe r e i s a n “ e m e r gi ng nat i on al consensus” thatU . S . S . G . § 2 G 2. 2 i s notent i t l ed t o d ef er ence and that j udge s m us tr out i ne l y s e nt e nc e run- of - the - m i l l c hi l d pornogr aphy of f e nde r s be l ow th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c a r e f

u llyc o n s id e r e d P s ic k ’s a r g u m e n t, b u t r e je c te d it be c aus e the s t a t i s t i c s l a c ke d the ki nd of s pe c i f i c i tytha tw oul d m a ke m e a ni ngf ul com pari sons po ss i bl e. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n fi nd i ng that there i s not , atl ea stas of no w , a “ nat i on al consensus. ” A l so, the di stri ctcourt ne c e s s a r i l y c ons i de r e d the i s s ue of unw a rr a nt e d di s pa r i t i e s bypr ope r l yc a l c ul a t i ng a n d r e v ie w in g th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e . Se e G a ll , 552 U . S . a t54 ( a voi da nc e of unw a rr a nt e d di s pa r i t i e s w a s “ c l e a r l y ” c ons i de r e d bythe S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on w hen sett i ng the G ui del i nes r anges, and a di stri ctcourtnece ss ar i l y gi ves4

si gn i fi cantw ei gh tand con si dera t i on t o the need t o avo i d u nw arrant ed di spar i t i es w h e n it c o rr e c tlyc a lc u la te s a n d c a r e f u llyr e v ie w s th a t r a n g e ) . T he “ ul t i m a t e que s t i on” i n P s i c k’ s c a s e , j us ta s i n othe rc a s e s , i s w he the rthe s e n te n c e w a s r e a s o n ab le . Ki m br ough , 5 5 2 U . S . at1 1 1 . A si d e fro m h i s al read yr e je c te d a r g u m e n t th a t h is lo w - e n d - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e v io la te s 1 8 U .S .C . § 35 53 (a )( 6), P si ck do es no tchal l enge hi s s ent ence as un supp ort ed by the §3 55 3(a) fact o rs. AF F I R ME D.