2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-6-2007 

# U SA v . D inges P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-1334

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Din g e s " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1002. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1002NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 06- 1334 and 06- 1335

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. TO D D CH RI STO PH ER D I N G ES, A ppel l ant

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N os . 03- cr - 00275- 1 and 03- cr - 00276- 1) D istri ct Ju d g e: T h e H o n o rab le T erren ce F . M cV erry

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay16, 2007 B E F O R E : F ISH E R , N Y G A A R D , and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed J une 6, 2007 )2 ___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. T odd D i nges pl eade d gui l t yt o pos s es s i ng por nogr aphydepi ct i ng m i nor s engage d i n s exual l yexpl i ci tconduct , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2252( a) ( 4) ( B ) , and t o m ai l fr aud i n v i olat i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 34 1. T he D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced him t o fo rty -ei gh tm on t hs’ im p riso n m e n t as to th e c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yc h a rg e , an d to f o rty -e ig h t m o n th s o n th e m a il fr aud cha r ge, t o be s erved conc ur r ent l y . T he s ent ence s of i m pr i s onm entar e t o be f o llo w e d b yc o n c u rr e n t th re e -ye a r p e ri o d s o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . D i nges r ai s es t w o ar gum ent s on appea l . Fi r s t , he ar gues t hatU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i ne § 2G 2. 4 vi ol at es t he s epar at i on of pow er s doctr i ne. Second, D i nges m a in tain s th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in g ra n tin g a n u p w a rd d e p a rtu re o n th e b a sis o f h is cri m i nal hi st ory . W e fi nd bo t h clai m s m eri t l ess. A s he di d i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , D i nges ar gues t hat , i n author i zi ng a cha nge i n t he m et ho d in w hich U nit ed S t at es Sen t encing C om m i ssi on m em bers ar e app oint ed, C on gress v iolated th e se p ara ti o n o f p o w ers d o ctri n e. S p ec ifi ca ll y , h e a rgu es th at th e e n ti re S e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s s y s t e m i s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l b e c a u s e t h e F e e n e yAm e n d me n ta l l o ws t he Pr es i dentt o appoi ntt o t he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on onl ym ember s of the Execut i ve B r anch. D i nges m ai nt ai ns t hatt hi s vi ol at es ourcons t i tut i onal l ym andat ed s epar at i on ofE v e n u n d e r th e m a n d a to ryse n ten c in g g u id e lin e re g im e , this d e p a rtu re w a s w ith in 1 th e s e n te n c in g c o u rt ' s d is c re tio n , a s e v id e n c e d b yth e la n g u a g e “ m a yb e w a rr a n te d .” 3 pow er s beca us e i tpl ace s contr ol overi ndi ctm ent , pr os ecut i on, and s ent enci ng i n t he hands of the Execut i ve B r anch. W e r ej ectt hi s ar gum entbeca us e the Sent enci ng G u idelines are n o w ad v isoryinstead o f m an d atory . R eg ard less, the D istri ct C o u rth ere s p e c if ic a lly re c o g n iz e d th a t it h a d th e a u th o ri ty to re je c t th e a p p lic a tio n o f

U .S .S .G . § 2G 2. 4, butdecl i ned t o do s o. N ext, D i ng es ar gu es the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed b ygrant i ng t he G ov ernm ent’ s r equ est foran upw ar d departur e bas ed on hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or y . T he G overnm ents oughtan u p w ard d ep arture p u rsua n t t o U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1 . 3 , w h ich a d v ises that an u p w ard d ep arture m aybe w arr ant ed w hen “r el i abl e i nform at i on i ndi cat es t hatt he def endant ' s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egorys ubs t ant i al l yunder - r epr es ent s t he s er i ous nes s of the def endant ' s cr i m i nal hi s t or yort he l i kel i hood t hatt he def endantw i l l comm i tot hercr i m es . ” U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 3. 1 I ni t i al l y , D i nges ' cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryw as I I I . T he G overnm entar gued that D i nges ’ pr i orcr i m i nal hi s t or yw as notadequa t el yr efl ect ed i n t he gui del i ne ca l cul at i on an d m o v ed fo r an u p w ard d ep arture. T h e D istri ct C o u rtag ree d . T h e D istri ct C o u rt poi nt ed t o D i nges ’ ei ght een pr i orconvi ct i ons i n t hr ee s epar at e Penns y l vani a count i es as w el l as t hi r t y - s even s um m aryconvi ct i ons befor e Penns y l vani a di s t r i ctj us t i ces , al l for chec k fr aud, for geryand/ orr ece i vi ng s t ol en pr oper t y . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o det erm i ned t hatD i nges ’ cr i m i nal hi s t or ycal cul at i on di d notr efl ectm ul t i pl e occ as i ons i n w hi ch4

D i nges w as found t o be i n pos s es s i on of chi l d por nogr aphy , i ncl udi ng i ns t ance s aft er D i ng es w as i nd i ct ed. T he D i stri ctC ou rtdeterm i ned t hat, given t hese findi ng s, D i ng es’ cri m i nal hi st oryw as “grossl yun der- repr esent ed. ” W e see no basi s for di sturbi ng t hese fi nd i ng s. G iv e n th is h isto ry , an d th e f a c t th a t D in g e s w a s f

o u n d in p o ss e ss io n o f

c h ild por nogr aphyeven a ft erbei ng i ndi ct ed forpos s es s i on of s uch abhorr entm edi a, t he D istri ct C o u rtd eterm ined that itw as e x tr em elyli k elythat D ing es w o u ld co m m itfu ture cr i m es . A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our texer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on and i ncr eas ed the cr i m i nal cat egory . G i ven ourdefe r ent i al r evi ew of the court ' s s ent ence , and the r ecor d' s s uppor tfor t he enha ncement , w e conc l ude thatt he r es ul t i ng s ent ence w as r eas onabl e. Foral l of the above r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC ourt ' s j udgm entof s ent ence and convi ct i on.