FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E ALS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT DECEMBER 15, 2006 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- 12254 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 2 7 5 - CR- CB 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 L O N N I E R A Y H O D N E T T , 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 o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 15, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L on ni e R ay H od nettappeal s hi s 360 -m on th sent ence i m po se d aft erhe pl ed2

g u ilty to c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y c h a r g e s . O n ap p e a l, H o d n e tt ( 1 ) a r g u e s th a t h is s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e ; a nd ( 2) r e que s t s tha tw e c ons true one of the c ondi t i ons of hi s s up ervi se d rel ea se t o avo i d a po t ent i al F i fth A m endm entvi ol at i on . A ft er r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D I n J u n e 2 0 0 5 , K e n n e th R a y J o h n s o n w a s a rr e s te d in M is s o u r i o n s ta te c h a r g e s b a s e d o n h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e p r o d u c tio n a n d d is tr ib u tio n o f c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y . J o h n s o n la te ra d v is e d F B I a g e n ts th a t h e h a d m e t D e f e n d a n t H o d n e tt in a s ex u al ch at ro o m th at ca tere d to p re teen s, an d th at h e h ad trav eled to H o d n ett’ s r e s id e n c e o n f

iv e o rs ix o c c a s io n s a n d w o u ld b r in g h is m in o rc h ild r e n w ith h im . O n o ne occas i on i n O ct ob er20 04 , John son v i si t ed D ef endantH od nettand al l ow ed H o d n ettt o en g ag e i n o ral sex w i th Jo h n so n ’ s si x -year-o l d d au g h t er. Jo h n so n al so adm i tt ed thathe had sentH od nettchi l d p orno graphy ov erthe i nt ernet , and that H o d n e tt h a d s e n t h im s o m e im a g e s o f c h ild p o rn o g r ap h y a s w e ll. I n O c t obe r2005, F B I a ge nt s e xe c ut e d a s e a r c h w a rr a nton D e f e nda nt H od nett ’ s r es i dence. A fore nsi c e xam i nat i on of H od nett ’ s c om pu t erre veal ed m ore than 6 00 i m ages of chi l d p orno graphy, as defi ned i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 25 6(8)(A ), in c lu d in g im a g e s o f

p r e p u b e s c e n t c h ild r e n e n g a g e d in s e x u a l a c tiv ity . H o d n e tt t ol d a n F B I a ge nttha the ha d thought s a nd ur ge s aboutha vi ng s e x w i th ki ds , a ndHodnett’s baseoffense leve l of 22 was increase d by : (a) 2 levels under U .S.S.G. 1 § 2 G2 .2 (b )( 2) be c a

us ehisof fens einv olv e d a

min or wh o w a s n ot ye t 12 ye arsold ; (b) 5 leve ls under § 2G2.2(b)( 3)(B ) bec ause his off ense involved distribution in ex chang e for a thingof value although not for

pecunia ry g ain; (c) 4 levels under

§ 2G2.2(b)(4) bec ause thematerial included sadistic or ma sochistic conduct, or other depictions of violence; ( d) 5 leve ls under § 2G2.2(b)( 5) bec ause heeng ag ed in a pattern of activity involving sexual abuse or exploi tation of a minor; (e ) 2 leve ls under § 2G2.2(b)(6) beca use his offense involved the use of a computer ; and (f ) 5 leve ls under § 2G2.2(b)(7) (D) be causehis offenseinvolved more than 600 imag es. Hodnett’s off

ense level was then reduc ed 3 leve ls under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 for acceptanceof responsibility , resultingin a total offense leve l of 42. 3 tha the s e e ks outc hi l d pornogr aphy on the i nt e rne t . H odne tta dm i tt e d t o e nga gi ng i n o ra l se x w i th Joh nson ’ s daugh t erand t ol d the F B I a gentthathe had a pai r of her pa nt i e s i n hi s dr e s s e rdr a w e r . T he c hi l d’ s pa nt i e s w e r e l oc a t e d a l ong w i th tr a i ni ng b r a s a n d o th e rp a n tie s w h ic h H o d n e tt s ta te d b e lo n g e d to h is g ir lf r ie n d ’s c h ild r e n . H odne tta l s o a dm i tt e d tha t( 1) i n 1969, w hi l e s e r vi ng i n V i e tna m , he ki dnape d a nd f o r c ib ly r ap e d as ix - y e a r - o ld V ie tn a m e s e g ir l; a n d ( 2 ) in th e 1 9 7 0 ’s , h e s e x u a lly m o le s te d th e y o u n g c h ild r e n o f h is f ir s t w if e . H o d n ettw as ch arg ed w i th (1 ) receiptan d d i stri b u t i o n o f ch i l d p o rn o g rap h y, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 2252A ( a ) ( 2) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( “ C ountO ne ” ) ; a nd ( 2) pos s e s s i on a nd a tt e m pt e d pos s e s s i on of c hi l d pornogr aphy , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U .S .C . § § 2 2 5 2 A ( a ) ( 5 ) ( B ) , 2 , a n d 2 2 5 6 ( 8 ) ( A ) ( “C o u n t T w o ” ) . H o d n e tt p le d g u ilty to th e c h a r g e s w ith o u t a p le a a g r e e m e n t. A p resen t en ce i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt(“ P S I”) reco m m en d ed a t o t al o ffen se l evel of 42 and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I , re sul t i ng i n an adv i sory

14

G ui de l i ne s r a nge of

360 m onths t o l i f

e i m pr i s onm e nt . H ow e ve r , be c a us e the s t a tut ory m a xi m um f

orC ountO ne i s 20 y e a r s , a nd the s t a tut ory m a xi m um f or C ountT w o i s 10 y e a r s , H odne tt ’ s m a xi m um s t a tut ory s e nt e nc e w a s 30 y e a r s or 36 0 m on ths. S ee 18 U . S . C . § 2 25 2A (b)( 1)-( 2). T here fore , the advi soryG ui del i nes r a n g e b e c a m e th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m o f 3 6 0 m o n th s . S e e U .S .S .G . § 5 G 1 .2 ( d ) . H odne ttdi d notr a i s e a ny obj e c t i ons t o the P S I , a nd the di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the cal cu l at i o n s. A ts e nt e nc i ng, D r . B a rry T . H i r s c h, a f or e ns i c ps y c hol ogi s t , t e s t i f i e d on b e h a lf o f H o d n e tt. D r . H ir s c h te s tif ie d th a t H o d n e tt h a d a n e x tr e m e ly c h a o tic ho m e l i fe w i th a brut al , hypers exual fa ther w ho batt er ed H od nett , hi s hal f s i st er , a nd hi s m othe r . H odne ttw i tne s s e d hi s pa r e nt s e nga ge i n s e xua l a c t i vi ty , a nd he a l s o w i tne s s e d hi s f

a the rs e xua l l y m ol e s thi s ha l f s i s t e rf r om the a ge of

abouts i x or se ven o n. H od nettal so had eng aged i n sexual i nt er course w i th h i s hal f s i st erw hen the y w e r e y oung, a nd hi s s e xua l f a nt a s i e s c ont i nue d t o c e nt e ra r ound pr e pube s c e nt gi r l s e ve n a s he gr e w ol de r . D r . H i r s c h r e c om m e nde d tha tH odne ttbe ( 1) s u p e r v is e d f

o rth e r e m a in d e ro f

h is lif e ; ( 2 ) p r e s c r ib e d a n tid e p r e s s a n ts , n o t o n ly b e c a u s e h e w a s c lin ic a lly d e p r e s s e d , b u t b e c a u s e th e m e d ic a tio n w o u ld lo w e rh is s e x dr i ve ; ( 3) s ubj e c t e d t o r a ndom drug t e s t s t o di s s ua de hi m f r om t a ki ng V i a gr a or r e la te d m e d ic a tio n s ; a n d ( 4 ) s u b je c te d to G lo b a l P o s itio n in g S y s te m m o n ito r in g .5

A lth o u g h D r . H ir s c h s ta te d th a t H o d n e tt is “a h a r d c o r e , p e d o p h ilic , s a d is tic a lly or i e nt e d i ndi vi dua l w ho i s appr opr i a t e f orr e m ova l f

r om s oc i e ty f

ora pe r i od of tim e to p r o te c t s o c ie ty ,” h e n e v e r th e le s s o p in e d th a t H o d n e tt w a s “h ig h ly tr e a tab le .” A c c o r d in g ly , D r . H ir s c h m a in ta in e d th a t w h ile k e e p in g H o d n e tt in pri son for thi rty y ea rs w ou l d p re venthi m fr om ac ce ss i ng chi l dren du ri ng thatt i m e, ( 1 ) o n ly m e n ta l h e a lth tr e a tm e n t c o m b in e d w ith m e d ic a tio n a n d m o n ito r in g w o u ld r e h ab ilita te h im ; ( 2 ) h e w o u ld b e le s s lik e ly to a c c e p t tr e a tm e n t a t th e e n d o f th ir ty years i n p ri so n th an h e w as n o w ; an d (3 ) i f h e d i d n o trecei v e treatm en t , h e m o st l i kel y w ou l d em er ge fr om pri son even m ore dangerous because he coul d l ea rn f r o m o th e rp e d o p h ile s w h ile in p r is o n . A ts e nt e nc i ng, H odne tt ’ s s t e p- da ught e r s R e ne e H ol l i s a nd V i c ky L y nn C o k e rte s tif

ie d o n b e h a lf

o f th e g o v e rn m e n t. B o th w o m e n te s tif ie d th a t H o d n e tt m ol es t ed them i n the 19 70 ’ s w hen they w er e c hi l dren, w hi l e H od nettw as m arri ed t o thei r m other. C ok eral so t es t i fi ed thatH od netthad sexual i nt er course w i th h er a s p a r t o f th e m o le s ta tio n . A t s e n te n c in g , th e g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e d th a t H o d n e tt s h o u ld b e s e n te n c e d to the st atut ory m axi m um of 30 ye ar s’ i m pri sonm ent , com m ent i ng thatH od nettw as

“ a post erchi l d for devi antsa do m as ochi st i c behavi or w i th chi l dren, ” a nd that“ at l ea stfor 30 yea rs w e c an t el l thi s c om m un i ty thati tw i l l be sa fe fr om hi m . ”6

H odne tta dm i tt e d tha tthe s a f e ty of the c om m uni ty w a s a n i m por t a ntc ons i de r a t i on, bu tar gu ed thathi s s ent ence shou l d focus on tre atm entand rehabi l i t at i on , ra ther th a n m e r e ly th e le n g th o f th e s e n te n c e . H o d n e tt le f t it u p to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to det erm i ne the approp ri at e l ength o f hi s s ent ence , bu tar gu ed thata tw el ve-y ea r s e n te n c e , s e r v e d in a m e n ta l h e a lth in s titu tio n w h e r e h e c o u ld g e t tr e a tm e n t, w o u ld b e ap p r o p r ia te . T he di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d H odne ttt o the s t a tut ory m a xi m um of 240 m on ths as t o C ou ntO ne and 1 20 m on ths as t o C ou ntT w o, t o b e s erved consec ut i vel y f

or a t ot al of 36 0 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . A l tho ug h the di stri ctcourt s ta te d th a t it f

e lt c o m p a s s io n f

o rth e c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u rr o u n d in g H o d n e tt’s e a r ly lif e , th e c o u r t d e te r m in e d th a t it m u s t s e n te n c e h im to th e lo n g e s t p o s s ib le te r m in order t o p rot ec tsoci ety a nd t o p un i sh hi m . S peci fi ca l l y, the courtst at ed, “ M r. H odne tt , I w i s h thi s pe n w e r e a m a gi c w a nd, I w oul d w a ve i ta nd I w oul d s e ty ou back . . . and h ave y ou com e up i n som e other f am i l y a nd som e other c i r c um s t a nc e . ” H ow e ve r , the c our tc ont i nue d, a s a ju d g e , m y o b lig a tio n is to p r o te c t— to d o a n u m b e ro f th in g s , to puni s h, t o de t e ra nd t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c . D r . H i r s c h i s a br i l l i a nt ma n . A n dy o u rl a w y e rh a s d o n e a n e x c e l l e n tj o b i n r e t a i n i n g h i m. A n d w h at h e h ad to sa y w as in tere stin g , b u t i t j u st d id n ’t m e a s ur e up t o w ha tI ne e de d t o he a rt o t e l l m e tha tthe r e w a s e nough of a gua r a nt e e ora s s ur a nc e tha ti f I s e nt e nc e y ou t o 12- y e a r s or 15- y e a r s or20, tha tthe tr e a tm e nttha ty ou m i ghtorm i ghtnot7

pa r t i c i pa t e i n a tB uc kne rf orthe s e xua l of

f e nde rpr ogr a m , y ou m i ght b e a te rr ib le

— y o u m ig h t n o t e v e n g o to it.

. . . . A nd the r e a r e t oo m a ny r i s ks , M r . H odne tt . S oc i e ty de m a nds m ore. A cco rd i n g l y, th e d i stri ctco u rtsen t en ced H o d n ettt o a t o t al o f 3 6 0 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt , s t a t i ng tha t“ tha ti s the onl y s e nt e nc e . . . tha ts e r ve s the s e nt e nc i ng obj ec t i ves of pun i shm ent , det erre nce a nd i ncapaci t at i on . ” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o s e n te n c e d H o d n e tt to a lif e te r m o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . A m o n g th e c o n d itio n s o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t o r d e r e d th a t H o d n e tt

“ pa r t i c i pa t e i n the m e nt a l he a l th s e x of f e nde rtr e a tm e nt , e va l ua t i on, t e s t i ng, cl i ni ca l , po l ygraph and o ther a ss es sm enti nstrum ent s a s di re ct ed by the court throu gh the prob at i on offi ce . ” H od nettobj ec t ed t o thi s c on di t i on of supervi se d r e l e a s e , a nd i n pa r t i c ul a r , the por t i on r e qui r i ng hi m t o s ubm i tt o pol y gr aph e x a m in a tio n s , a s a p o te n tia l v io la tio n o f h is F if th a n dS ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . H o d n ettn o w ap p eal s. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . R eason ab l en es s of S en te n ce O n app ea l , H od nettar gu es thathi s 360 -m on th sent ence i s unrea sonabl e, c l a i m i ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s l onge rtha n ne c e s s a ry t o a c hi e ve the purpos e s of s e n te n c in g .“Thefac tors in § 3553(a) inc lude: (1) the nature a nd circumstances of

the offense; 2 (2 ) t hehis tor y and c ha rac teri sti c s o f t

hede fendant; (3 ) t

hene e d f or thesentenc eimp os e d to re fl e c t th eseri ou sn e ss o f t heof fens e , topromo tere sp e c t f or thelaw, and

to p ro videjus t punishment; (4) the nee d to protect the public; a nd (5) the Guidelines rang e.” United States v. Sc ott , 4 26 F .3 d 1 32 4, 13 28 -2 9 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 5) (c iting18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a)) . “ [N]ot hingin B oo ker o r e lsewh e rere quire s th edis tric t c ourt to s tateon

there c ord th at it

ha s e xplic itly considere d each of the § 3553(a) factors or to discuss each of the§ 3553(a) fac tors.” I d. at 1329. Instead, indications in the re cord that the district court considered facts and c ircumstance s falling within § 3553(a)’ s fac tors will suffice. Id. at 1329-30; Talley, 431 F.3d at 786. 8 A ft erU ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), a di stri ct c our t , i n de t e r m i ni ng a r e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e , m us tc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e the s e nt e nc i ng r a n g e u n d e rth e G u i d e l i n e s a n d th e n c o n s i d e rth e f a c t o r s s e tf

o r th i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(a) . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). 2 W e r e vi e w a de f

e nda nt ’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e f orr e a s onabl e ne s s i n l i ghtof the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 46 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). T hi s “ [r ] evi ew for r ea sonabl enes s i s def er ent i al . . . . and w hen the di stri ct c o u r t im p o s e s a s e n te n c e w ith in th e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s r a n g e , w e o r d in a r ily w ill e x p e c t th a t c h o ic e to b e ar e a s o n ab le o n e .” T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 8 . “[ T ]h e p a r ty w h o c h a lle n g e s th e s e n te n c e b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f e s tab lis h in g th a t th e s e n te n c e is un re as on abl e i n the l i gh tof bo th [the] re cord and the fa ct ors i n sec t i on 35 53 (a ). ” I d. T he f

a c ttha tH odne ttr e c e i ve d the s t a tut ory m a xi m um t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt for hi s c on vi ct i on s does notnece ss ar i l y m ake the se nt ence un re as on abl e. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. John son, 45 1 F . 3d 12 39 , 12 44 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( up ho l di ng as9

r e a s onabl e a s t a tut ory m a xi m um s e nt e nc e of 140 y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e ntf or prod uci ng and d i stri bu t i ng chi l d p orno graphy). A f te rr e v ie w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t H o d n e tt h a s n o t s h o w n th a t h is 3 6 0 - m o n th se nt ence i s unrea sonabl e. T he di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c al cul at ed the advi sory G ui del i nes r ange and i nd i ca t ed thati thad con si dere d sever al of the § 3 55 3(a) f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g ( 1 ) th e h i s t o ry a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e d e f e n d a n t , 1 8 U . S. C. § 3553( a ) ( 1) ; ( 2) the ne e d f orthe s e nt e nc e t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e ntf orthe of f e ns e , a f f or d a de qua t e de t e rr e nc e , a nd pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om f ur the rc r i m e s of the de f e nda nt , i d. § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( A ) - ( C ) ; a nd ( 3) the a dvi s oryG ui de l i ne s t e r m of im p r is o n m e n t, id . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 4 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o c o n s id e r e d th e n e e d to pr ovi de H odne ttw i th appr opr i a t e m e nt a l he a l th tr e a tm e nt , i d. § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( D ) , but ul t i m at el y c on cl ud ed thatthe ri sk of H od nettno tbei ng succ es sf ul l y r ehabi l i t at ed w as t oo grea tt o j ust i fya l ow erse nt ence w hen com pare d w i th the need t o p rot ec t th e p u b lic . A c c o r d in g ly , w e c a n n o t s a y th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s s e n te n c e is un re as on abl e. B . C o n d i ti o n s o f S u p erv i sed R el ea se H o d n e tt a r g u e s th a t th e c o n d itio n o f h is s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e r e q u ir in g h im to su b m i tt o p o l yg rap h t est i n g m ay v i o l at e h i s F i fth A m en d m en tp ri v i l eg e ag ai n st s e l f - i nc r i m i na t i on. T he r e f

or e , H odne ttr e que s t s tha tw e c ons true thi s c ondi t i on ofAlthough w e ca n decidewhether

requiringpolygraph te sting a s a condition of 3 su perv ise d re le a seg e nerally vio late s th eF if

th Amendment, thi s Co ur t alre a dy ha s re je c te d this argument and wedo not discuss it further. See T aylor, 338 F.3d at 1284. 10 s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e t o pr ovi de tha thi s s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e c a nnotbe r e voke d i f he r e f u s e s to s u b m it to th e p o ly g r ap h te s tin g b a s e d o n a v a lid a s s e r tio n o f h is F if th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . T hi s C our tha s he l d tha tw he r e a de f e nda ntc ha l l e nge s a c ondi t i on of supervi se d rel ea se re qu i ri ng po l ygraph t es t i ng on F i fth A m endm entgrou nd s w hen no i nc r i m i na t i ng que s t i ons ha ve be e n a s ke d a nd the pr i vi l e ge ha s notbe e n i nvoke d, an i nd i vi du al i ze d F i fth A m endm entcl ai m i s notri pe for r evi ew . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. T a y l or , 338 F . 3d 1280, 1284 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Z i nn, 321 F . 3d 1 0 8 4 , 1 0 9 1 - 9 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . I n thi s c a s e , H odne tt ’ s c onc e rns abouta pot e nt i a l F i f th A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on p r e s e n t o n ly s p e c u la tio n ab o u t f u tu r e c o n tin g e n t e v e n ts , a n d th e r e f o r e , h is c la im is no tri pe for r evi ew . T ay l or, 33 8 F . 3d at12 84 . H od nett ’ s t erm of supervi se d 3 r e l e a s e ha s nots t a r t e d, he ha s notbe e n a s ke d a ny pot e nt i a l l y i nc r i m i na t i ng q u est i o n s, an d h e h as n o ti n v o k ed th e F i fth A m en d m en tp ri v i l eg e ag ai n st se l f- i ncri m i nat i on . A s s uch, w e nee d n otconstrue the cond i t i on of supervi se d rel ease t o av o i d an y p o t en t i al F i fth A m en d m en ti ssu es.11 I I I . CONCL US I ON B as ed on the foregoi ng re as on s, w e a ff i rm H od nett ’ s 360 -m on th sent ence and t erm of supervi se d rel ea se . AF F I RME D.