N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GEOR GE STEPHEN M C GOW AN,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-30028

D.C . No. 2:17-c r-00201-R SM -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ardo S. M artine z , C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d

M ay 15, 2019 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, KLEINFELD, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc u it Judge s. Ge orge Ste phe n M c Gowa n a ppe a ls his 160-month se nte n c e for one c ount of Ac c e ss with Inte nt to Vie w C hild Pornogra phy in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252(a )(4)(B ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd a ffirm . 

# F IL ED

J UN 04 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tations of theSe nte nc ing Guide line s

de novo, a

nd a pplic a t ion of the Guide line s ge ne ra lly for a buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v. Ay a l a -Nic anor, 659 F.3d 744, 746 (9th C ir. 2011). “ A distric t c ourt a buse s its disc re tion whe n it e rrs in its Guide line s c a l c ulation, im pose s a se nte nc e ba se d on c le arly e rrone ous fa c ts, or im

p ose s a substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble se nte nc e .” Unite d Stat e s v. B urgos-Orte g a , 777 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th C ir. 2015).

W e do not de c i de whe t

he r the distric t c ourt e rre d in de te rm ining tha t M c G owa n’ s prior c onvic tions e sta blishe d the pre dic a te for the 10-y e a r m andatory m inim um se nte nc e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2252(b)(2) be c a use e rror, if any , wa s ha rm le s s. In re vie wing the a pplic a b le se nte nc ing fa c tors, the distric t c o urt note d that M c Gowa n ha d “ m urde re d a room m a te for m aking too m

uc h noise wa shing pots a nd pa ns,” tha t a s a 40-y e a r-old he c o nfe sse d to ha

v ing a n ongoing se xua l re lationship with a

14-y e ar-old, a

nd tha t “ within m e re da

y s a fte r not ha

ving a ny one looking over his shoulder, he turn[e d] around a n d he im m e diat e ly obta in[e d] a la ptop a nd sta rt[e d] looking a

t c hild pornogra

p hy [] a ga in.” Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ). The se fa c t s showe d M c Gowa n’ s ina bility to c ontrol his im

pulse s, a nd that M c Gowa n wa s “ a pre datory

individual” who would c om m it future offe nse s

“ give n the opportunity . ” Although a c knowle dging the se rious que s tions ra ise d 2a

bout thea pplic a bility of the 10-y e ar m andatory m inim um , the distric t c ourt sta

te d that “ in this pa

rtic ula r c a se , irre ga

rdle ss of whe the r the c o urt found tha t the pre d ic a te offe nse s c ounte d a nd, the re fore , the m andatory m inim um a pplie d, for a ll of the re a sons sta

te d pre viously , the c ourt would ha ve a pplie d a nd im pose d the e xa c t sa m e se nte nc e .” M ore ove r, the a pplic a ble Guide line s ran ge —

whic h a ll pa rtie s a gre e d wa s c orre c tly c a lc ulate d—

w a s a bove the m a

n datory m inim um , a nd the d istric t c o urt e xpla ine d tha t it wa s va

ry ing upwa

rd from that ra

nge be c a use of the s e c onc e rns. This re c o rd e sta blishe s tha

t a ny e rror re ga

rding the m an dat ory m inim um wa s ha rm le ss. Se e Unite d State s v. Le a sure , 319 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ A se nte nc ing e rror is ha rm l e ss if the distric t c o urt ‘ would ha ve im pose d the sa

m e se nte nc e a

b s e nt the e rrors.’ ” (quoting Unite d State s v. M a t sum aru, 244 F.3d 1092, 1106 (9th C ir. 2001)); se e a lso Unite d State s v. Ali, 620 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ W he n a n ‘ a lle ge d e rror is ha

rm le ss [it is] not a ground for re se nte n c ing.’ ” (a lte ra t ion in origina l) (quoting Unite d

State s v. Garro, 517 F.3d 1163, 1169 (9th C ir. 2008)).

Whe the r the distric t c ourt m e ant the “ just hours”re m ark in its Sta t e m e nt of R e a sons— file d six da

y s a fte r M c Gowa

n’ s se nte nc e wa s im

pose d by the distric t c ourt— lite ra lly , or m e re l y to sugge st tha t only a short tim e ha d pa sse d be t we e n 3M c G owa

n’ s re le a se from

sta t e supe rvision a

nd the “ insta

n t offe nse ,” its signific anc e wa s tha

t it showe d a

la c k of im

pulse c ontrol a

nd like lihood of re offe nding. For tha

t purpose , the pre c ise durat ion of the tim e ga p be twe e n the la c k of sta te supe rvision a

nd offe nding c onduc t did not matte r. 1 Se e B urgos-Orte ga , 777 F.3d a

t 1056 (finding no proc e dura l e rror whe re “ [v] ie wing the re c ord a s a whole , the distric t c ourt did not re st its se nte nc e on” c le arly e rrone ous fa c ts). And be c a use M c Gowa

n doe s not a lle ge tha

t the re wa s a

fa c tua l e rror a t the tim e of se nte nc ing, we are not pe rsua d e d tha t the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d . Se e Unite d State s v. He rnande z , 795 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th C ir. 2015). As for substa

ntive unre a sona

ble ne s s, the distric t c ourt e xpre ssly and c are fully re vie we d the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) fa c t ors, a nd c onside re d a

ny pote ntia l m itiga ting c irc um sta

nc e s. “ [T] he re c ord a s a

whole re fle c ts rat iona l a

nd m e aningful c onside ration of [a ll re l e va nt] fa c tors.” Unite d State s v. R uiz -Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 911 (9th Cir. 2011) (c ita tion omi tte d). The se nte nc e wa s a lso not fa

r a bove the Guide line range whic h, a s note d a bove , the pa

rtie s a gre e

1 The pre se nte nc e re port a lso sta te s tha t the la ptop ha d be e n purc h a se d on M arc h 8, 2017, tha

t M c Gowa

n’ s sta te supe rvision e nde d a fte r M a rc h 9, 2017, a

nd that a re v ie w of the la

ptop re ve a le d im

prope r se arc he s “ in M a

rc h.” 4wa s c a lc ulate d c orre c tly . In light of M c Gowa n’ s history a s disc usse d

and c onside re d by

the distric t c ourt, the se n te nc e wa s not substa ntive l y unre a s ona

ble . AFFIRM E D.

5