2010 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

4-30-2010 

# U SA v . R ich ard King , Jr

. P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-1861

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_2010

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 2010 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 . R ich ar d Kin g , Jr

. " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1402. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1402P 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 o. 09- 1861

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. R IC H A R D D . K IN G , J R ., 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 M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 04- cr - 00071) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E

. Jo n es, II I

A r gued O ct ober27, 2009 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , F U E N T E S a n d H A R D IM A N , C irc u it

Judges

. ( Fi l ed: A pr i l 30, 2010)
Fr eder i ck E. M ar t i n ( A r gued) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney 240 W es tT hi r d St r eet2 Sui t e 316 W i l l i amspor t , PA 17701- 0000 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee R onal d C

. T r avi s ( A r gued) R ie d e rs , T ra v is , H u m p h re y , H a rr is , W at er s & W aff

ens chmi dt 161 W es tT hi r d St r eet P. O

. B ox 215 W i l l i amspor t , PA 17701- 0000 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ant

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge

. R i c h a r d Ki n g ap peal s hi s j udgm entof s ent ence fol l ow i ng a condi t i onal gui l t ypl ea t o v iol at i ng 18 U

. S. C

. § 2241( c) ( I nt er s t at e Tra ns por t at i on t o E ngage i n Sex w i t h a M i nor )

. T he pr i nci pal ques t i on of pr ece dent i al i m por ti s w hethert he rul e of law e sta b lish e d in G eor gi a v. R andol

ph , 547 U

. S. 103, 122- 23 (2 0 0 6 ), viz. , t hata pr es entand obj ect i ng r es i dentcan ove r r i de anotherr es i dent ’ s cons entt o s ear ch a home, appl ies to t he se izu re o f

a c o m p u ter . W e h o ld th a t itd o e s n o t.

I.W e r efe rt o L arki n’ s daught er as “Peanut ” t o pr ot ecther 1 p r i v a c y. 3 I n Au g u s t2 0 0 3 , Ki n g wa s u s i n g t h e s c r e e n n a me
“ a y o u n g b e a v e rlu v r” w h e n h e m e t A n g e la L a rk in o n a w e b site cal l ed “Cher r y Poppi nD addy s . ” I n t hei ri ni t i al conver s at i on, Ki n g a c k n o wl e d g e d th a tp e r f o r mi n g o r a l s e x o n h i s o wn daught er caus ed hi s di vor ce. H e al s o offe r ed t o dr i ve over200 m il es f ro m h is h o m e in M o h n ton , P en n sy lvan ia, to L ark in’s hom e i n E m por i um , Penns y l vani a, s o he coul d per form or al s ex o n L a rk in ’s tw o -ye a r- o ld d a u g h te r, w h o m s h e c a lle d “ P e a n u t.” 1
D ur i ng t he nextt w o m ont hs , K i ng and Lar ki n chatt ed o n lin e a b o u t th e ir m u tu a l in ter e st in w a tch in g m in o rs e n g a g e in se x a c ts w ith a d u lts a n d sh a re d c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . A f ter L a rk in s ai d s he li ked one de pi ct i on of a y oung chi l d engage d i n a s ex actw i t h an adul t , K i ng r es ponded he w oul d “mostdefi ni t el y ” do th e sa m e to P e a n u t. I n S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 3 , K in g c h a tted w ith ot her s abouthi s s exual i nt er es ti n Peanut

. T hats ame m ont h, L arki n als o sent nud e pictures of P eanu tt o K i ng and other s. I n addi t i on t o hi s i nvol vementw i t h L arki n and her d a u g h ter , K in g m a in tain e d se v e ra l o n lin e re latio n sh ip s w ith u n d er age gi r l s t o w hom he s entchi l d pornogr aphy

. A s par tof hi s s el f- pr ofes s ed des i r e t o “s exual l yi ni t i at e” them, K i ng t aught t hem t o m asturbat e and sentthem pictures of his gen i t al s. L arki n br i efl y l os t cont act w i t h K i ng i n O ct o b er 2 003 w hen s he l eftherhus band and moved w i t h Peanutand her co m p u te rt o B uffa l o, N ew Y or k. I n m i d- N ovember2003,4 how ever , L arki n cont act ed K i ng thr ough a s er i es of e- m ai l s and p h o n e c a l l s , a s k i n g t o mov e i n wi t h h i m b e c a u s e s he w as unhappyi n B uffa l o. K ing r es ponded bye- m ai l : “y ou know w h a t m yf

a n tas yis.” S o o n th e re a f ter , L a rk in e -m a iled K in g to ask i f P e a nu tw ou l d s e xu a l l ys a t i s fyhi m. Fol l owi ng the se in ter n e t ex c h a n g e s, o n T h a n k sg iv in g D a y2 0 0 3 , K in g d ro v e to B uffa l o, w her e he pi cke d u p L arki n and Peanutand br ought t hem t o hi s hom e i n M ohnt on, Penns y l vani a. W i t hin a w ee k aft erL arki n m oved i n w i t h hi m , K i ng began pe r form i ng or al s ex on Peanut

. T hough t heyl i ved under t he s ame r oof, K i ng and Lar ki n cont i nued corr es pondi ng vi a em ai l s t hats how K i ng’ s s exual cont actw i t h Peanutw as fr equent enough t o m ake Larki n j eal ous . K i ng al s o hel ped Lar ki n us e a P a y P a l ac c o u n t to o b tain p a ym e n t f o r dis trib u tin g p o rn o g ra p h ic im a g e s o f

P e a n u t o v e r th e in ter n e t.
L arki n’ s conductw as di s cover ed byl aw enfor cement agent s i n m i d- February2004 aft erpornogr aphi c im ag es of Pe a n u t wer e f

o u n d o n a c o mpu t e r i n Te x a s . Th e T exas author i t i es pr om pt l ynot i fi ed the Penns y l vani a St at e Pol i ce, w ho i n tur n not i fi ed S peci al A gent J ames K y l e of t he Feder al B ur eau o f In v e stig a tio n , o f

a p o ten tial c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yv ictim in E m p o riu m , P e n n sy lv a n ia. O n F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , A g e n t K y le obt ai ned and exec ut ed a w arr ant t o s ear ch L ark in’s form er r e s i d e n c e i n Em p o r i u m. U pon hi s arr i val atL arki n’ s form err es i dence , A gent K y l e det erm i ned thatt he furni tur e and di s t i nct i ve w al l s m at ched t ho se depict ed in the ch i l d p ornog raphyi m ages fo un d in T exas. W hi l e exe cut i ng t he w arr ant , K y l e metL arki n’ s ex- hus band,5 R o b e rt M c C u llen , w h o sta ted th a t L a rk in h a d m o v e d to B u f f a lo i n t he fal l w i t h Peanut and her comput er . A ft erK y l e expl ai ned th e n a tu r e o f

h is in v e stig a tio n , M c C u llen id e n tifie d th e g irl in t he pi ctur es as hi s daught er . B eca us e M cC ul l en w as unaw ar e of L arki n’ s w her eabout s aft ers he l eftB uff alo, he s entL arki n an i ns t antm es s age as k ing he rfora phone numberw her e s he and Peanutcoul d be r eac hed. L arkin responded a fe w hour s l at er w i t h a phone num ber

. O ffi cer s i ni t i al l y t r ace d t he num ber t o a pos toffi ce box i n M ohnt on, butfur t heri nves t i gat i on r evea l ed t h a ti twas c o n n e c t e d t o Ki n g ’ s r e s i d e n c e a t9 3 Pe n n yp a cker R oad i n M ohnt on. Al t h o u g h La r k i n h a d n o wa r r a n t s i n t h e Na t i o n a l Cr i me I nform at i on C ent er dat abas e, A gent K y l e cal l ed t he St at e Pol i ce i n R eadi ng, Penns y l vani a, ap p ri s ed them of t he s i tuat i on, and as ked t hem t o chec k forl ocal w arr ant s . T hi s s ear ch l ocat ed an out s t andi ng 2002 bench w arr antforL arki n’ s arr es ti s s ued byt he C our tof C om m on Pl eas of Pot t er C o u n ty

. A ft err ece i vi ng confi r m at i on t hatthe ar r es tw arr antw as s t i l l act i ve— and af t er i ndepend en tl yver i fy i ng t he conne ct i on betw een the phone n u m b e r a n d 9 3 P e nn ypack er R oad

— S t at e P oli ce T roo p e rs C o y le and R odr i guez pr ocee ded t o K ing ’s re s i dence t o exec ut e the a rre st w a rra n t.
W h en K i ng ans w er ed the door , T r ooper s C oy l e and R od ri g u ez a dvi s ed hi m of the w arr antforL arki n’ s arr es tand as k ed t o s ee he r . K i ng l ed them upst ai r s t o t he hal l w ayr i ght out s i de the ki t chen w her e theyhandcuf fed L arki n; foroffi cer sa f e tyth e ya sk e d th e o th e r res id e n ts— K in g , h is m o th e r a n d h is ste p -f a th e r— to sta yp u t. A t so m e p o in t, P e a n u t jo in e d th e m in6 th e h a ll. F ro m w h e re th e y sto o d , the o f f ice rs c o u ld n o t se e in to th e b e d ro o m s d o w n th e h a ll.
W hi l e atK i ng’ s r es i dence, T rooperC oy l e r ece i ved a p h o n e c a ll fro m a n o f

f ice r w h o su g g e ste d th a t C o y le a sk L a rk in f o r p e rm iss io n to tak e h e r c o m p u ter . A f ter L a rk in c o n se n ted to t he s ei zur e, K i ng w al ked t h e t r ooper s t o a bedr oom dow n t he h a ll an d d isc o n n e c ted th e c o m p u ter

. B e f o re th e tro o p e rs c o u ld s ei ze i t , how ever , K i ng cl ai m ed ow ner s hi p of t he har d dr i ve and o b jec ted to its se izu re . K in g th e n re q u e ste d p e rm iss io n to rem o v e the har d dr i ve, butthe tr ooper s deni ed hi s r eques tand seize d the co m p u ter, inclu d ing the h ard d ri v e. T h e troo p ers depart ed K ing ’s r es i dence w i t h L arki n, Peanutand the co m p u ter.
T he nextday , A gentK y l e and a n otherFB I agent tra n sp o rte d L a rk in to th e C lin to n C o u n tyC o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty in th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. D u rin g th e d riv e , L a rk in sig n e d a f

o rm a u th o riz in g th e F B I to a ss u m e h e r o n lin e id e n tity a n d d is c lo s e d a ll o f

h e r p a ss w o rd s. U p o n re c e iv in g th is author i zat i on, A gentK y l e cal l ed a col l eague and r eques t ed that L arki n’ s pas s w or ds be cha nged t o pr es erve the cont entof herem ai l s. T h e f

o ll o w ing T u esd ay , K ing co n tacted tw o o f L ark in’s o ther “ cu stom ers,” R o d L o n g an d K en n eth A m erine , to w arn t hem t hat t he FB I w as usi ng L arki n’s scr een nam es. K i ng al so told A m erine that h e “ just th rew aw ay[th re e ] 1 2 0 g ig h ard dr i ves ” and that t he onl yw ayt o des t r oya har d dr i ve i s by r emovi ng i tand phy s i cal l ydes t r oy i ng i t w i t h a hamm er , s o t he FB I cannotr ecove ranyt hi ng. T her e i s no di r ect pr oof t hatK i ng7 orA m er i ne des t r oy ed any evi dence , butno chi l d pornogr aphy w as found on A m er i ne’ s comput er even t hough he a d m itt ed v iew in g it.
L at ert hatw eek, w hen A gent K y l e r evi ew ed Lar ki n’ s em ai l s and cha t s , he found i ncr i m i nat i ng conver s at i ons betw een L a rk in a n d K in g , inc lu d in g th e c o n v e rsa tio n s a b o u t P e a n u t. W ith th is e v id e n c e in h a n d , o n M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 4 , A g e n t K y le obt ai ned and e xecut ed tw o s ear ch w arr ant s

— one forthe s ei zed c o m pu t er and t he o t her for K i ng ’s ho m e, i ncludi ng a ll c o mp u t e r s c o n t a i n e d th e r e i n . A l t ho ug h Ki n g wa s n o th o me w h e n A g e n t K y le e x e c u ted th e w a rra n t, K in g sp o k e w ith K y le overt he phone a nd i ni t i al l y decl i ned K y l e’ s i nvi t at i on t o s peak wi t h h i m i n p e r s o n . Th a t n i g h t , Ki n g c h a n g e d h i s m i nd and c a lled to a rra n g e a m e e tin g w ith K yle a t th e F B I’s o f f ice in W ill iam sp o rt, P e n n sy lv a n ia, w h ich is n e a r t h e C lin to n C o u n ty C or r ect i onal Faci l i t yw her e L arki n w as hous ed. B eca us e K i ng p l a n n e d to b e in th e a re a to v is it L a rk in th e n e x t S a tu rd a y, M a r c h 6 , 2 0 0 3 , h e a r r a n g e d t o m e e tK yl e th a td a y. K in g g o t lo st on th e w a y to W ill iam sp o rt a n d a rriv e d late Sat u r d a ya f

t e r n o o n whe n th e f

r o n td o o r s wer e l o c k e d a n d the bui l di ng w as r el at i vel yempt y . A gent K y l e opened t he doorfor K i ng and, aft erpat t i ng hi m dow n forw eapons , led h im t o the F B I of fice

. A g en t K y le e n tered a c o d e to u n lock the o ff ice d o o r, w hi ch r emai ned unl ocked f r om t he i ns i de, and l ed K i ng t o an in ter ro g a tio n ro o m . B e f o re a sk in g a n yq u e stio n s, A g e n t K y le t ol d K i ng he w as fr ee t o l eave atanyt i m e and thatthe i nt ervi ew w as vol unt ary . B eca us e no otherFB I ag ent s w er e i n t he W i l l i am sportoff

i ce att he ti m e, an ag ent i n the Ph i l a d e lp h ia offi ce l i s t ened ove rt he phone.8 O vert he cour s e of s ever al hou rs , K i ng admi t t ed per form i ng or al s ex on Peanutand t ravel i ng t o N ew Y or k for t hatpurpos e. A gentK y l e s how ed K ing t he i ncr i m i nat i ng em ai l s he r etr i eved fr om L arki n’ s acc ount , and then as ked K i ng abouthi s onl i ne r el at i ons hi ps w i t h other y oung gi r l s as w el l as aboutthe thousa nds of chi l d pornogr aphyi m ages found on K in g ’s c o m p u ter

. K in g a d m itt e d to a lo n g -sta n d in g in ter e st in s e x u a l c o n t a c twi t h y o u n g g i r l s th a tb e g a n wi t h h i s o wn daught er . W hen the i nt ervi ew ended, vi s i t i ng h o u rs a tt he C lin to n C o u n ty C o rre c tio n a l F a c ili ty w e re o v e r, s o A g e n t K y le t r i ed t o arr ange f

or K ing to vi s i tL arki n, buthe w as uns ucce s s ful

. K i ng t hen depa r t ed.
II.
La r k i n was i n d i c t e d i n t h e M i d d l e Di s t r i c tof P e n n s y lv a n ia o n F e b ru a ry 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 . O n A p r il 8 , 2 0 0 4 , a s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entchar ged K i ng w i t h t h e offe ns e ati s s ue in th is a p p e a l (1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 (c )) a n d h e p ro m p tly s u rr e n d e re d to a u th o ri tie s . O n e y e a r la te r, o n A p ri l 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , a s econd s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm ent added char ges agai ns tK i ng for s endi ng and ca us i ng t he r ece i ptof chi l d por nogr aphi c i m ages t h r o u g h i n t e r s t a t e c o mme r c e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S

. C. § 2252( a) ( 1) ( A ) and cons pi r ac yt o des t r oyevi dence and obs t ruct an o ff ici al pro ce ed ing u n d er 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 5 1 2 (c).
A f tere n ter in g a p lea o f n o t g u il ty, K in g m o v e d to s uppr es s al l evi dence obt ai ned on February 19, 2004, cl ai m i ng t hatt he entr yi nt o hi s hom e and the s ei zur e of Lar ki n’ s comput er v io la te d th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. K in g a lso a rg u e d th a t h is s t at ement s t o A gent K y l e on M ar ch 6, 2004 s houl d beA l t ernat i vel y , t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d thatentr yw as 2 ju stif ied b ye x ig e n t circ u m sta n c e s b e c a u se P e a n u t w a s in danger

. W e do notr eac h t hi s i s s ue. A l t ernat i vel y , t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d— as does our 3 concurr i ng col l eague , J udge Fuent es

— t hat t he s ei zure w as j us t i fi ed byexi gentci r cumst ance s . W e do not r eac h t hi s i s s ue. A l t hough J udge Sl ovi t er ful l y agr ees w i t h thi s opi ni on, s he does notdi s agr ee w i t h J udge Fuent es ’ s concurr ence and bel i eves t hat underei t herr at i onal e ther e i s no cons t i tut i onal obj ect i on t o the seizu re o f th e c o m p u ter. 9 su p p re ss e d b e c a u se th e in ter r o g a tio n v io late d h is F if th A m e n d m en t r igh ts un d er Mi r anda v. A r iz ona , 3 8 4 U. S. 4 3 6, 4 6 7 -6 8 (1 9 6 6 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n o n A p ril 13, 2006, fi ndi ng t he entr yi nt o K i ng’ s hom e val i d beca us e the pol i ce had an arr es t w arr antand pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve that L arki n w as i n t h e h o m e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o hel d that 2 s ei zur e of the comput erw as p r operbeca us e Lar ki n cons ent ed a n d K in g a ss u m e d th e risk o f L a rk in ’s c o n se n t b yin sta lli n g h is har d d r i v e t h e r e i n . Fi n a l l y , th e Di s t r i c tCou rth e l d th a tthe 3 i nt err ogat i on d id n o tvi ol at e Mi r anda beca us e i tw as not c u sto d ial.
F o llo w in g th e D istr ic t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f h is m o tio n to su p p re ss , o n A p ril 1 7 , 2 0 0 6 , K in g e n ter e d a c o n d iti o n a l g u ilty pl ea t o one countof vi ol at i ng 18 U

. S. C

. § 2241( c)

. I n excha nge forK i ng’ s pl ea, t he G overnm ent agr eed t o: ( 1) di s m i s s t he other char ges ; ( 2) r ecomm end a tw o- poi ntdow nw ar d departur e for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yunders ect i on 3E 1. 1( a) of the10 U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( U SSG ) ; and ( 3) r e c o mme n d a o n e - l e v e l d o wnwar d d e p a r tu r e f o rs u b s t a n t i al a s s i s t a n c e u n d e rU S S G § 5 K 1

. 1

. D u r i n g t h e p l e a c o l l o q u y, K i ng admi t t ed that“one of t he manyr eas ons ” he tr avel ed t o and fr om B u ff

alo w as t o have s ex w i t h Peanut , a mi norundert he age of t w el ve. T he D i s t r i ctC our tacc ept ed K i ng’ s gui l t ypl ea. O n O ct ober15, 2006, K i ng’ s a tt o rn e ymov e dt o w i t hdr aw as couns el and t o w i thdr aw K i ng’ s gui l t ypl ea. T he D i s t r i ct C our tappoi nt ed new couns el , w ho ar gued thatK i ng s houl d be al l ow ed t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t ypl ea be caus e he w as i nnocentand becau se the G ov ernm ent fai l ed to turn o ver vari ou s docu m ents , i ncl udi ng B r ady m ate ri a ls. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied K ing ’s m ot i on on J un e 8, 2007, fi ndi ng i ns uffi ci entj us t i fi cat i on for w i t hdr aw al of the pl ea b eca us e K i ng di d notas s ertactual inn o ce n ce an d b ec au se a ll m aterial s w ere turn ed o v er to K ing ’s at t or ney s i n a t i m el yfas hi on. O n O c to b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 , K in g f iled a se c o n d m o tio n to w i t hdr aw gui l t ypl ea, thi s t i m e cl ai m ing t hathe l acke d the r equi s i t e ment al capa ci t yt o ent era val i d gui l t ypl ea. T he D i s t r i ct C our t deni ed t hat m ot i on on M ay16, 2008, fi ndi ng K i ng w as me n t a l l yc o mpe t e n tb a s e d o n t e s t i mon yf r o m hi s p r i or cou nsel and his con du ct i n cou rt

. A ft er r esol ving t hese m oti on s, t he D i s t r i ctC our tor der ed t he pr epar at i on of a f our t h ver s i on of t he Pr e s e n t e n c e I n v e s t i g a t i o n Re p o rt , s chedul ed a c onfer ence for A u g us t25, 2008, and ul t i m at el ys chedul ed a pr es ent ence hear i ng forO ct ober25, 2008.
T h e D istric t C o u rt d e ter m in e d K in g ’s a p p lica b le Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange a nd rul ed on al l departur e mot i onsT he D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed th e 2 0 0 3 ver s i on of the 4 S entenci ng G uidel i nes. 11 on F ebruary4, 20 09

. T h e D i stri ctC ou rtbeg an w i t h a b ase 4 offe ns e l evel of 27 and added t he fol l ow i ng upw ar d departur es under t h e Se n t e n c i n g Gui d e l i n e s : ( 1 ) f o u rl e v e l s b e c a u s e t he v i c t i m w a s u n d e rt h e a g e o f t we l v e , § 2 A3

. 1 ( b ) ( 2 ) ; ( 2 ) t wo l e v e l s fo r c a r e , c u s t o d yo rs u p e r v i s o r yc o n t r o l o v e rth e v i c t i m, § 2A 3. 1( b) ( 3) ( A ) ; ( 3) tw o l evel s beca us e a c om put erw as us ed t o fac i l i t at e the tr avel , § 2A 3. 1( b) ( 6) ( B ) ; ( 4) tw o l evel s for obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce, § 3C 1. 1; and ( 5) fi ve l evel s for aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance s , § 5K 2. 0( a) ( 1) ( B )

. T h e D i s t r i ct C our tal s o deni ed dow nw ard departur es foracc ept ance of resp o ns i bi l i t yunder§ 3E 1. 1 and s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance under § 5K 1. 1. I n t he fi nal anal y s i s , K i ng’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel w as 42 and hi s cri m i nal hi s t orycat egoryw as I I , r es ul t i ng i n a G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f

3 6 0 m o n th s to life im p riso n m e n t.
T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d K i ng on M ar ch 1 6 , 2009. T h e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g inclu d ed test im o n y f ro m P ea n u t’ s guar di an, w hi ch w as t aken i n ca m era a n d se a led . In o p e n c o u rt, the D istri ct C o u rt co n side red the 18 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a ctors and s ent ence d K i ng t o 360 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , s upervi s ed r el eas e fora t erm of l i fe, and the mandat ory$100 s peci al as s es sm ent

. K i ng fi l ed thi s t i m el yappea l , cl ai m i ng t hatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n: ( 1) deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s ; ( 2) deny i ng hi s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw gui l t y pl ea; and ( 3) s ent enci ngTh e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S

. C. 5 § 3231. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. 12 h im t o 360 m on t hs i n pri son. W e add res s each ar gu m e n t in tur n. 5
III

. W e beg i n by con si deri ng K i ng ’s m oti on t o s up press , in w h ich h e a rg u e d th a t h is F o u rth a n d F if th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts w er e vi ol at ed. W e “r evi ew [] t he D i s t r i ctC o u rt ’s d eni al of a m ot i on t o s u p p r e s s f

o rc l e a re r r o ra s t o t h e u n d e r l y i n g f a c tu al fi ndi ngs and exe r ci s e[] pl enaryr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC ourt ’s appl i cati o n o f t he l aw t o thos e fa ct s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 2 8 0 F

. 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 3 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ).
A.
K i ng cl ai m s t he pol i ce vi ol at ed t he Four t h A m endm ent w hen they en t er ed hi s hous e on February19, 2004 and s ei zed hi s har d dr i ve w i t houta w arr antorhi s conse n t. H e does not d ispu te that L ark in con sen ted t o the seizu re of h e r c o m p u ter, w hi ch i ncl uded t he har d dr i ve t hat K i ng had i ns t al l ed. N ordoes th e G o v e rn m e n t d isp u te th a t K in g o b jec ted to th e se izu re o f

h is h a rd d riv e a n d a sk e d a g e n ts f o r th e o p p o rtu n ityto re m o v e it fr om L arki n’ s comput er . T hes e fa ct s pr es enta novel ques t i on of l aw : w hen an ow ner of a comput er cons ent s t o it s se i zur e, does t hatcons enti ncl ude t he comput er ’ s har d dr i ve eve n w hen i tw as i ns t al l ed by anot herw ho cl ai m s ow ner s hi p of i tand obj ect s t o i t s s ei zur e?13 A ns w er i ng t he pi vot al ques t i on i n t he negat i ve, K i ng r el i es on G eor

gi a v. R andol

ph , w h e r e th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld that p o li ce ca n n o t s e arc h a h o m e b ase d o n o n e re side n t’ s c on s e ntw he n a no t he rr e s i de ntob j e ct s t o the s e a r c h. 54 7 U. S. at122 -23

. T he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed thi s ar gum entand r ej ect ed i t , r el y i ng on Uni t e d S ta t e s v . Mat l ock , 415 U

. S. 164 (1 9 7 4 ), w h e re th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t g ra n tin g a th ird p a rty “comm on author i t y ” overper s onal t y“as sum e[s ] t he r i s k” that th e th ir d p a rt yw ill c o n s e n t to its s e a rc h

. I d. at170- 71.
A l t hough bot h R andol ph and M

at l ock b ea r on our decis i on i n thi s ap peal, w e fi nd neither one con t rol l i ng becau se t he fa ct s o f th is cas e place i tsom ew here betw een those cases. I n Mat l ock , t he Supr eme C our tes t abl ishe d t hatcons entfr om one w i t h “comm on author i t y. . . i s val i d as agai ns tthe abs ent , noncons ent i ng per s on w i t h w hom t hatauthor i t yi s s har ed. ” 415 U

. S. at170- 71 & n. 7 ( empha sis a d d ed). T he C our tr eas oned t hatw hen s om eone gr ant s comm on au thor i t yt o another , he as s um es t he r i s k t hatt he co- us erw i l l cons entt o a s ear ch of that c o m m o n a re a o r i te m . I d. A lth o u g h th is ru le s p e c if ica lly ap p li es to eith er “ p rem ises o r e ffec ts , ” i d. , t he C our tw as not fac ed w i t h a s i tuat i on— l i ke the i ns t antap p eal and R andol ph

— w her e anotherpart yi s pr es entand obj ect i ng t o t he pol i ce a ct i on. I n R andol

ph , al t hough the Supr eme C our tr es ol ved the ques t i on of an obj ect i ng r es i dent ’ s abi l i t y t o vi t i at e the cons ent of hi s co- t enant , t he C our tw as n o t pr es ent ed w i t h a s i tuat i on— l i ke the i ns t antappea l and M at l ock

— w her e per s onal

“ e f f e c ts ” w e re a t is s u e . R andol ph m e re lyh e ld “ th a t a w arran t l es s s ear ch of a s har ed dw el l i ngf o re v i d e n c e o v e rthe14 expr es s r efus al of cons ent b y a phy s i cal l ypr es entr es i dent cannotbe j us t i fi ed as r eas onabl e as to h im on t he bas i s of cons entgi ven t o t he pol i ce by an o ther r es i dent

. ” 547 U

. S. at 1 2 0 (em p h asis ad d ed ).
T o o u r k n o w led g e , th e o n ly f e d e ra l a p p e llate d e c isio n to ad d ress this issue af

ter R andol

ph is th e N in th C irc u it’s a ltern a te hol di ng i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mur

phy , 5 1 6 F .3 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 2 4 (9 th C i r . 2008) , w hi ch w as not ci t ed by t he par t i es . I n t hat ca s e, M urphy w as l i vi ng i n, and runni ng a met hamphet ami ne l ab out o f , a s to ra g e u n it r e n te d b yR o p e r. I d. at 1119. Pol i ce s ear ched t he uni tbas ed on R oper ’ s cons ent , even th o ugh M urphy o b je c te d

. I d. at1119- 20. C i t i ng R andol ph , M urphyar gued that h is o b je c tio n o v e rc a m e R o p e r’ s c o n s e n t. I d. a t 1 1 2 1 . T h e N in th C i r cui tagr eed, fi ndi ng t he s t or age uni t w as a dw el l i ng, al bei tan u n c o n v e n tio n a l o n e . I

d. a t 1 1 2 4 . In th e a ltern a tiv e , the N in th C irc u it o p in e d th a t R andol ph w o u ld ap p lyev en if th e u n itw ere n o t a d w e lli n g , b e c a u se “ th e re is n o re a so n th a t th e ru le in R andol ph s houl d be l i m i t ed t o r es i dence s . ” I d. T h e N in th C irc u it rea so n e d th a t R andol ph is b a sed o n “c o m m o n a u th o ri ty,” w hi ch had be en ext ended “ w el l bey ond r es i dence s . ” I d.
A s w e s hal l expl ai n, ourr eadi ng of R andol ph lea d s u s to di s agr ee w i t h t he N i nth C i r cui t ’ s r eas oni ng i n Mur phy. A l t houg h t he maj or i tyopi ni on i n R andol ph d id n o t d ire c tly a d d r e s s p e rso n a lty , o u r re v iew o f th re e o p in io n s f

iled in R andol ph lea d s u s to c o n c lu d e th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt im p licitly l i mi t e d i t s h o l d i n g t o s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r es o f t h e h o me . To ful l yunder s t and thati m pl i cat i on, w e mustbeg in w i t h the p rim a ryd iss e n t.15 I n hi s di s s ent , C hi ef J us t i ce Rober t s addr es s ed ouri s s ue d ire c tly , ex p lain in g th a t M at l ock pr ovi des t he bas el i ne rul e for c o -u s e r o b

je c tio n s to s e a rc h e s o f

p e rs o n a l e f

f e c ts

. R andol

ph , 5 4 7 U .S . at 1 2 8 (R o b e rts, C .J., d iss e n tin g ). C o -u se r co n se n t is eff ect i ve bec ause the actof s har i ng pr oper t yfrus t r at es t he ow ner ’ s r eas onabl e expec t at i on of pr i vacy w i t h r egar d t o the cou s e r. I d. at 131 ( “by s har i ng pr i vat e s pace , pr i vacy ‘ has al r eady b e e n f ru stra ted w ith re sp e c t to ’” th e p e rso n w ith w h o m it i s s har ed ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jacobs en , 466 U

. S. 109, 117 (19 8 4 )))

. C o n seq u en tl y , o n ce an o w n er sh are s p erso n alty o r a se c re t, h e a ss u m e s th e risk th a t h is c o n f id a n te w ill sh a re it w ith th e p o l i c e . I

d. F u rth e rm o re , af

ter th e o w n e r re lin q u ish e s h is re a so n a b le e x p e c tatio n o f p riv a c y re g a rd in g th e c o n f id a n te, h is p re s e n c e a n d o b

je c tio n c a n n o t u n d e rm in e h e r c o n s e n t. I d. at 128, 131. C hi ef Jus t i ce Rober t s i l l us t r at ed thi s rul e w i t h an e x a mp l e t h a ta n t i c i p a t e d t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d h e r e : “ I f t wo r oom m at es s har e a c om put er and one keeps pi r at ed s oftw ar e on a s har ed dr i ve, he mi ghtas s um e thathis r oom m at e w i l l not in f o rm th e g o v e rn m e n t. B u t th a t p e rso n h a s g iv e n u p h is pr i vacyw i t h r es pectt o hi s r oom m at e by s avi ng t he s oftw ar e on t hei rs har ed comput er . ” I d. at131. T he di s s ent al s o ar gued that t hi s rul e s houl d ext end t o t he home: [J ] us tas an i ndi vidu al w ho has s har ed i l l egal pl ans ori ncr i m i nat i ng do cu m ent s w i t h another cannoti nt erpos e an obj ect i on w hen thatother per s on tur ns the i nform at i on overt o t he governm ent , j us tbeca us e the i ndi vi dual happens t o be pr es ent at t he t i m e, s o t oo s om eone w ho s har es a pl ace w i t h anothercannoti nt erpos e an obj ect i on w hen that per son d eci des t o g ranta c c ess16 t o t he pol i ce, s i m pl ybeca us e the obj ect i ng in d iv id u a l h a p p e n s to b e p re se n t. Id

. at128.
W r i t i ng for t he C our ti n R andol ph , J us t i ce Sout ernever di s agr eed w i t h C hi ef J us t ice R ober t s aboutt he rul e for per s onal t y . I n fac t , J us t i ce Sout er r ej ect ed t he di s s ent ’ s at t empt to e q u a te th e h o m e w ith a se c re t as a “ f a lse e q u a tio n [ th a t] s ugges t s a del i ber at e i nt ent t o deval ue t he i m por t ance o f t he p riv a c yo f

a d w e lli n g p la c e .” 5 4 7 U .S . at 1 1 5 n .4 . T h is r ej oi nderstr o n g l yi m pl i es thatthe maj or i t yagr eed w i t h t he di s s ent ’ s rul e for per s onal t yand s ecr et s butr ej ect ed i tas t o t he h o m e b e c a u s e o f

th e h o m e ’s p riv ileg e d sta tu s in F o u rth A m e n d m e n t ju ri s p ru d e n c e . See, e. g. , i d. Fur t herm or e, the m a jo rityc ra f

te d it s ru le u sin g ter m s th a t ap p lyso lelyto d we l l i n g s . F o r e x a mp l e , wh e n e x p l a i n i n g th e “ f i n e l i n e ” d r a wn betw een R andol

ph a n d p r i o rp r e c e d e n t s , th e Cou r ts t a t e d th at R andol ph a p p lies “ if a p o ten tial de f e n d a n t w ith se lf

-in ter e st in o b jec tin g is in f

a c t atthe door and obj ect s . ” I d. at12 1. T hese t erm s , combi ned w i t h the maj or i t y ’ s emphasi s on the s anct i t yof t he home, s t r ongl yi m pl yt hatt he R andol ph ru le a p p lies o n lyto a dw el l i ng pl ace . W e a lso f

in d it s ig n if

ica n t th a t th e m a

jo rity ’s f if th v o te in R andol ph l i m i t ed hi s concurr ence t o t he fact s of t he cas e. 547 U .S . at 1 2 7 (B re y e r, J., co n c u r r in g ) (jo in in g th e m a jo rity “[g] i ven t he cas e- s peci fi c natur e of t he C our t ’ s hol di ng”)

. L i ke t he maj or i t y , J us t i ce Bre y er u sed t erm s t hatappl yonl yt o a d w e llin g , w ith o u t m a k in g a n yre f e re n c e to p e rs o n a l e f

f e c ts

. See,C ont r ary to the conc urr ence ’ s as s ert i on, thi s rul e does 6 notr i s k encr oachi ng on Four t h A m endmentr i ght s . C om put er us er s can pr ot ectt hei rfi l es by us i ng a pass w or d, j us t as one w ho s har es a foot l ockercan pr ot ecthi s phot ogr aphs bypl aci ng them in a lo c k e d c o n ta in e r in s id e th e f o o tlo c k e r. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. A ndr us , 4 8 3 F .3 d 7 1 1 , 7 1 8 -2 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); U ni t ed S ta tes v . K im , 27 F. 3d 947, 957 ( 3d C i r . 1994) ( expl ai ni ng that cons entt o s ear ch an a r ea do es not i ncl ude cons entt o s ear ch lo c k e d c o n tain e rs in th a t ar e a ); s ee al s o R andol

ph , 547 U

. S. at 1 3 5 (R o b e rts, C .J., d iss e n tin g ) (“T o th e e x ten t a p e rso n w a n ts to ens ur e thathi s pos s es s i ons w i l l b e s ubj ectt o a cons ents ear ch on l y du e t o h i s o wn cons ent , he i s fr ee t o pl ace thes e i t ems i n an ar ea ove rw hi ch other s do notsh a re a c c e ss a n d c o n tro l, be it a pr i vat e r oom ora l ocked s ui t cas e undera bed. ”)

. Forexampl e, i n Trulock v

. Fr eeh , t he Four t h C i r cui tfound thata def endant w ho pr ot ect ed hi s fi l es w i t h a pass w or d, had not “as s um ed the ri s k ” th a t h is c o -u s e r “ w o u ld p e rm it o th e rs to s e a rc h h is f ile s .” 2 7 5 F

. 3 d 3 9 1 , 4 0 3 (4th C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). 17 e .g ., id. at126- 27 ( r efe r r i ng t o “off i cer s s eeki ng t o ent ert he ho use ” and “ t o ent era h o me ” (e m p h asis ad d ed )).
I n s u m, o u r r e a d i n g o f J u s t i c e So u t e r ’ s o p i n i o n f o rt he C o u rt , J us t i ce Brey er’s co n cu rren ce , an d C h ief Ju sti ce R o b erts’s d iss e n t, l e a d s u s to c o n c lu d e th a t th e ru le o f law e sta b lish e d in R andol ph does notext end bey ond t he home. 6
B eca us e R andol

ph do es not applyt o p ers on al effects , K in g ’s s u p p re ss io n a rg u m e n t n e c e ss a rilyf a ils. A c o m p u te r is a p e rs o n a l e f

f e c t, s ee, e. g, A ndr us , 483 F.3d at 718- 2018 (a n a lo g izin g a c o m p u ter to a c o n tain e r). T h e re f o re , w e a p p ly t he Mat l ock

rul e and as k w hether K i ng r el i nqui s hed hi s pr i vacy in th e h a rd d riv e w ith re sp e c t to L a rk in . H e re , K in g p lac e d h is har d dr i ve i ns i de the com put erL arki n ow ned and thatt he tw o of t hem shar ed, w i t houtanypas s w or d pr ot ec ti on. A s a r es ul t , he as s um ed the ri sk t hatL arki n w oul d cons entt o i t s s ei zur e. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterri n hol di ng thatthe se izu re o f

L a rk in ’s c o m p u ter d id n o t v io late th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t a n d e v id e n c e d e riv e d th e re f ro m w a s a d m iss ib le agai ns tK i ng. B.
W e n e x t tu r n t o Ki n g ’ s c l a i m th a t Tr o o p e r s Coy l e and R odr i guez vi ol at ed t h e F our th A m endmentw hen theyent er ed 93 Pennypacke rR oad t o exec ut e the arr es tw arr anton L arki n. O ffi cer s m ay ent er a thi r d part y ’ s r es i dence t o arr es tthe s ubj ect o f a n a rre st w a rra n t if th e yh a v e p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e sh e is in s id e . Uni t e d

S ta t e s v . Agnew , 4 0 7 F

. 3 d 1 9 3 , 1 9 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). In a ss e ss in g “ w h e th e r th e p o lice h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e a su sp e c t w a s re sid in g a n d p re se n t in a h o m e , w e a p p ly a comm on s ens e appr oach and cons i der t he fa cts and ci r cumst ance s w i t h i n the know l edge of the l aw enfor cement agent s , w hen vi ew ed i n t he t ot al i t y . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. V

eal , 453 F

. 3 d 1 6 4 , 1 6 7 -68 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion o m itted).
K in g c laim s th e S tate P o lice lac k e d p r o b a b le c a u se to ent erhi s r es i dence beca us e the phone numbe r in it i al l yw as tr ac ed to a p o st of

fice b o x an d theyfa il ed to stak e o u t K ing ’s h o m e to d e ter m in e w h e th e r L a rk in w a s in s id e . K in g c o rre c tly not es t hatt he phon e num berL arki n gave t o M cC ul l en w as19 i ni t i al l yt r ace d t o a pos toffi ce box. A s t he D i s t r i ct C our tnot ed, h o w e v e r, th e G o v e rn m e n t q u ick lytra c e d th e p h o n e n u m b e r to 9 3 P e n n yp a c k e r R o a d a f ter d e ter m in in g th a t th e n u m b e r q u ite obvi ous l ycoul d not appl y t o a pos toffi ce box. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed no err or

— m uch l es s cl ear e rro r— w h e n it f

o u n d th a t th e tele p h o n e n u m b e r “ w a s u lti m a tely t r ace d” t o K i ng’ s hom e. T h e D istric t C o u rt d id c o m m it o n e f a c tu a l er ro r w h ich , to i t s cr edi t , t he G overnm ent acknow l edges

. T he D i s t r i ctC o u rt found t hat M cC ul l en t ol d the off i cer s L arki n m oved t o the B erks C ount yar ea. I n fac t , M cC ul l en t ol d A gentK y l e thathe di d not k n o w wh e r e L a r k i n we n ta f t e rs h e l e f

tBu f f a l o . T h e r e f

o r e , we e v a lu a te w h e th e r p ro b a b le c a u se e x iste d to b e liev e th a t L a rk in w a s in K in g ’s r e sid e n c e w ith o u t co n sid e rin g th is e rra n t f a c t. Ap p l y i n g p l e n a r yr e v i e w t o t h e p r o p e r l yf o u n d f a c t s , we hol d t he St at e Pol i ce ha d pr obabl e caus e t o bel i eve Larki n w as i n K i ng’ s r es i dence

. T he Stat e Pol i ce kne w notm er el ythat L arki n had l eftB uffa l o; t heyknew t hat a few hour s ear l i er L arki n s ai d s he and Peanut coul d be r eac hed ata phone number t r aced to 93 Pennypacke rR oad. U ndert he t ot al i t yof the c irc u m sta n c e s, th e se f

a c ts p ro v id e d p ro b a b le c a u se f o r th e S tate Pol i ce t o bel i eve Larki n w as at K i ng’ s r es i dence w hen theyw ent th e re to e x e c u te th e a rre st w a rra n t. C.
K i ng al s o cl ai m s a vi ol at i on of hi s Fi fth A m endment r i ght s on M ar ch 6, 2004, w hen A gentK y l e i nt ervi ew ed hi m at t he W i l l i amspor t FB I offi ce w i t houtadmi ni s t er i ng Mi r anda20 w arni ngs . T he di s pos i t i on of thi s ques t i on turns on w hethert hat in te rv ie w c o n s titu te d a “ c u s to d ia l in te rr o g a tio n .”
Mi r anda appl i es t o thos e “i n cus t ody

. ” Mi r anda , 384 U

. S. at467- 68. O ne i s “i n cus t ody ” w hen t he author i t i es s ayor do s om ethin g obj ect i vel yi ndi cat i ng “theyw oul d nothave h e e d e d a re q u e s t to d e p a rt o r t o a llo w t h e s u s p e c t to d o s o .” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

i l l am an , 4 3 7 F

. 3 d 3 5 4 , 3 5 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). W e cons i derfi ve f

act or s t o det erm i ne w hetherK i ng w as obj ect i vel yfr ee t o l eave : ( 1) w hethert he off

i cer s t ol d t he s us pecthe w as underarr es torfr ee t o l eave ; ( 2) the loca t i on or phy s i cal s ur r oundi ngs of the i nt err ogat i on; ( 3) t he l ength of the i nt err o g at i on; ( 4) w hethert he offi cer s us ed coe r ci ve t act i cs s uch as hos t i l e t ones of voi ce, t he di s pl ayof w eapons , orphy s i cal r es t r ai ntof the s us pect ’ s m ovement ; and ( 5) w h e th e r th e su sp e c t v o lu n tar ilysu b m itt e d to ques t i oni ng. I d. at359- 60. Ap p l y i n g t h e f

i v e f a c t o r s t o th e f

a c t s o f th i s c a s e , s o me fa v o r K ing ’s p o sit ion an d so m e f av o r th e G o v ern m en t’ s pos i t i on. T he s econd a nd t hi r d fac t or s— the l ocat i on of the in ter ro g a tio n a n d its len g th

— f a v o r K in g . T h e F B I o f f ice is i nh erent l ym ore i nti m i dati ng t han m ostl oca tio ns such a s a bus i nes s offi ce, an aut om obi l e, or a publ i c s t r eet

. L i kew i s e, the i nt err ogat i on w as fai r l yl ong, l as t i ng s ever al hour s . O n the other hand, t he fi r s t , four t h, and fi fth fac t or s al l favort he21 G o v e r n me n t

. Age n t Ky l e s p e c i f i c a l l y t o l d Ki n g h e was not underarr es t , t he off

i ce doorw as notl ocked f r om t he i ns i de, K i ng coul d have e xi t ed atanyt i m e, and ther e i s no evi dence t hat A g e n t K y le u se d a n y c o e rc iv e tac tics . F in a lly , K in g v o lu n tar ily s ubm i tt ed t o t he ques t i oni ng aft erpr evi ous l yr efus i ng, and d e p a rte d w h e n h e c h o se to d o so . T h e re f o re , it w a s o b

jec tiv e ly r eas onabl e forK i ng t o thi nk he w as fr ee t o l eave . O u r c o n c lu s io n is s u p p o rte d b yth e f a c tu a l sim ilarity be t we e n t h i s a p p e a l a n d th e i n t e r r o g a t i o n th a tth e S u p r e me C our thel d t o b e non- cus t odi al i n O r egon v. Mathi as on , 429 U

. S. 492 ( 1977)

. I n t hat cas e, “M athi as on ( 1) had come t o t he s t at i on vol unt ar i l y , ( 2) w as i nform ed thathe w as notunder arr es t , and (3) left the i nt ervi ew w i t houthi ndr ance . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jacobs , 43 1 F. 3d 99, 106 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng Mathi as on , 429 U

. S. at495)

. A ccor di ngl y , w e hol d thatK i ng w as not“i n cus t ody ” forpurpos es of M i r anda , s o t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d id n o t er r in f in d in g n o v io latio n o f K in g ’s F if

th A m end m ent r i gh t s. I V.
W e n ex t ad d ress K ing ’s ch all en g e to th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s d e n i a l o f h i s mot i o n t o wi t h d r a w gu i l t yp l e a . Ki n g bor e a
“ s u b s ta n tia l” b u rd e n , U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 336 F. 3d 245, 252 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , of s how i ng a “f ai rand j us tr eas on” forthe w i thdr aw al of hi s pl ea. Fed. R

. C r i m . P. 11( d) ( 2)

. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a mot ion t o w i t hdr aw gui l t ypl ea f o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 250 F. 3d 811, 8 1 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ).22 I n de t e r mi n i n g whe t h e ra “ f a i ra n d j u s tr e a s o n ” e x i s t ed forw i t hdr aw al of a de fendan t ’ s pl ea, di s t r i ctcour t s cons i der w hether : ( 1) t he def

endant“as s ert s hi s i nnocence; ” ( 2) t he d e f e n d a n t p ro f

f e re d s tr o n g re a so n s ju stif y in g th e w ith d ra w a l; a n d (3 ) th e g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld b e p re ju d ice d b y th e w ith d ra w a l. U ni t ed Stat es v. M

ar t i nez , 7 8 5 F

. 2 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 4 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 6 ). K i ng cl ai m s t o h ave sat i sfi ed all three fact ors. K i ng purpor t s t o have a s s ert ed i n n o c e n c e w hen he a r gued t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tthathe w as “fa ctual l yi nnocenti n t he M idd le D i s t r i ct ” bec aus e al l of hi s s exual cont actw i t h Peanut occurr ed athi s hom e i n the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. T h is a r g u m e n t, f

irst p ro f f e re d in th e m o tio n to w ith d ra w , fa ils for several reas on s. Fi r s t , K i ng w ai ved thi s i s s ue. H e t r i es t o avoi d w ai verby f ra m in g h is c laim o f

a c tu a l in n o c e n c e a s a n o n -w a iv a b le j ur i s di ct i onal def

ect , buthi s eff

or tfai l s beca us e al l fede r al cour t s have j ur i s di ct i on t o hearcr i m i nal cas es arisi n g under fede r al s t atut es s uch as 18 U

. S. C

. § 2241( c)

. 18 U

. S. C

. § 3231; se e a lso U

n itedS ta tes v . P o lin , 3 2 3 F

. 2 d 5 4 9 , 5 5 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 6 3 ). A s w e h a v e e x p lain e d , ch a llen g e s to th e a p p ro p ria te d is tr ic t co u rt a re a c tu a lly c h a lle n g e s to v e n u e . U ni t ed Stat es v. R obi ns on , 1 6 7 F .3 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). B yp lea d in g g u ilty i n t h e Uni t e d St a t e s Di s t r i c t Cou r t f o r t h e M i d d l e Di s t r i ct of P e n n s y lv a n ia , K in g w a iv e d a n yc la im o f i m p r o p e r v e n u e . See W as hi ngt on v. Sobi na , 4 7 5 F. 3 d 1 6 2 , 1 6 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 7) ( hol di ng entr y of a gui l t y pl ea w ai ves al l non- j ur i s di ct i onal issue s).23 Sec o n d , e v e n h a d Ki n g p r e s e r v e d th e a r g u me n t , v e nue w a s p ro p e r i n th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia b e c a u s e it w a s a “ d is tr ic t w h e re in th e c ri m e s h a ll h a v e b e e n c o m m itte d .” U

. S. C ons t

. amend. V I

. T he offens e of i nt er s t at e tr ans por t at i on t o engage i n s ex w i t h a mi norcont ai ns thr ee e l ement s : ( 1) cr os s i ng i nt er s t at e l i nes ; ( 2) w i th t he i nt ent t o engage i n a s exual a c t w ith a m in o r; a n d (3 ) e ith e r p e r f o rm in g o r a ttem p tin g to p e rf o rm th e a c t. 18 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 (c ); s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. C r yar , 2 3 2 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 1 -2 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). B e c a u se th is a co n ti n u ing o ff

en se, v en u e i s ap p rop ri ate in a n yd istri ct w h ere K i ng t r ans por t ed orabus ed Peanut

. 18 U

. S.C

. § 3237( a) (“[ A ]nyo ff

en se a g ains t th e U n it ed S tat es . . . co m m itted i n m o re t han one di s t r i ct , m aybe i n q u ir ed of a nd pr os ecut ed i n any di s t r i cti n w hi ch s uch off ens e w as begun, co n t i nued, or co m p let ed

. ”); s ee al

s o C r yar , 232 F. 3d at1321- 22 ( appl y i ng 18 U

. S

. C

. § 3 2 3 7 (a) to p rose cu ti o n s u n d er 1 8 U .S

. C

. § 2 2 4 1 (c)). B eca us e K i ng dr ove thr ough t he M i ddl e D i s t ri ct of Penns y l vani a on hi s w ay t o and fr om B uffa l o, N ew Y or k, venue w as appr opr i at e ther e. A par tfr om hi s venue a r gum ent , K i ng ad vance s the s peci ous cl ai m t hat al t hough he i nt ended t o tr ans por tPeanutand i nt ended t o have se x w i t h her , he ass ert ed i nnocenc e bec aus e he d id n o t ad m it t o h a v in g th e re q u isite in ten t w hi l e cr os s i ngsta te l i nes . B ut t he re qui s i t e i nt ent m aybe form ed atanypoi ntdur i ng t he “i nt er s t at e tr avel ” as l ong as t he defe ndant t r avel ed “f ort he purpos e of e ngagi ng i n the unl aw ful s exual act

. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Tykars ky , 446 F.3d 458, 471 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ayw ard , 3 5 9 F .3 d 6 3 1 , 6 3 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 )); see al so C r yar , 232 F. 3d at1324 ( poi nt i ng t o evi dence fr om befor e the24 dr i ve, i ncl udi ng conver s at i ons expr es s i ng s exual i nt er es ti n the att em p ted v ict im ).
F u rth e rm o re , th e e v id e n c e sh o w s th a t h a v in g se x w ith P e a n u t w a s the p u rp o se o f K in g ’s trav e l a n d th a t h e f o rm e d th is purpos e bef

or e he dr ove t o B uffa l o, nota w eek l at er , as he cl ai m s . A bal d as s er t i on of i nnocenc e i s i nadequa t e; i tm us tbe s u p p o rt e d b yth e f

a c ts

. Br o wn , 2 5 0 F .3 d a t 8 1 8 . H e re , e-m a ils a n d in s ta n t m e s s a g e s K in g s e n t t o L a r k in a n d o th e r s d e m o n s tr a te th at he i ntended t o have sex w i t h Pean ut. F or exam ple, w h ile di scu ssing L arki n’ s r eques tt o m ove i n, K i ng r emi nded herof hi s “fa n ta s y ” and Larki n as ked K i ng i f Peanut“w oul d be enough” t o s at i s fy h im

. K ing al s o t ol d ot her s of hi s s exual i nt er es ti n P ea n u t. Fi nal l y , K i ng admi t t ed t o A gentK y l e that w h e n h e le f

t f o r B u f f a lo h e k n e w h e w o u ld h a v e se x w ith Peanut , a n d h e a d mi t t e d e n g a g i n g i n s e x a c t s wi t h Pe a n ut m ult i ple t i m es duri ng her fi rs tw eek in M oh nton. F or al l these re a so n s , th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n w h e n it found thatK i ng di d notas s ertactual i nnocenc e. A s fort he s econd pr ong— r easons j us t i fy i ng the w i t hdr aw al

— K i ng s i m ply r ehas hes hi s “fa ctual i nnocenc e” ar gum ent , cl ai m i ng l ack of j ur i s di ct i on i s t he m o st c om pel l i ng r eas on t o al l ow w i t hdr aw al of hi s gui l t ypl ea. K i ng w as r equi r ed, how ever , t o expl ai n w hyhe cha nged hi s m i nd f o llo w in g h is g u ilty p le a . U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 336 F. 3d 245, 253 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

. K i ng coul d have obj ect ed t o v enue much s oonerand ci t es no r eas on forhi s bel at ed change of heart

. T he abs ence of anyexpl anat i on i s s t r ong s uppor tfor the D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatK i ng s uffe r ed fr om “pl eade r ’ s r emors e” o n c e h e lea rn e d o f th e p r o p o se d G u id e lin e s ra n g e in h isT he D i s t ri ct C our tm ade K i ng aw ar e dur i ng t he pl ea 7 co lloq u ythat itco u ld im p o se p u n ishm en ts up to the statu tory m axim um pu nis hm ent of l i fe i m pri sonm ent, $2 50 , 00 0 in fi nes, a $100 s peci al as s es s m ent , and a l i fe t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e, i n addi t i on t o r es t i tut i on. A nd K i ng s peci fi cal l yacknow l edged t hat pot ent i al m axi m um s ent ence . B utas of thatdat e, the i ni t i al pr opos ed G ui del i nes r ange, noti ncl udi ng t he § 5K 1 m ot i on, w as 1 5 1 to 1 6 8 m o n th s. K in g f irst m o v e d to w ith d ra w h is g u ilty pl ea l es s t han tw o m onths aft erhe r ece i ved the Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor t , w hi ch pr opos ed a G ui del i nes r ange of 360 m ont hs t o l i fe. K in g a lso c h a llen g e s h is c o m p e ten c e to e n ter th e g u ilty 8 p lea b u t as th e D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d , K ing w as c o m p e ten t. In a d d iti o n to K in g ’ s a tto rn e y s te stif y in g th a t h e w a s c o m p e ten t, K i n g a l e r t l y c a u g h ta n u a n c e d m i s t a k e d u r i n g t h e p l e a c o l l o q u y, w hi ch s how s t hat he under s t ood t he proc eedi ng and the r i ght s he 25 P re se n ten c e In v e stig a tio n R e p o rt. B u t c h a n g in g o n e ’s m in d is 7 nota s uffi ci entr eas on t o j us t i fyw i t hdr aw al of a gui l t ypl ea. E

. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. I

s aac , 1 4 1 F

. 3 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 5 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T her efor e, t he D i s t r i ct C our t di d not abus e i t s di s cre ti o n w hen i tfound thatK i ng fai l ed t o pr offe rs t r ong r eas ons j us t i fy i ng t he w i t hdr aw al of hi s pl ea. W e c a n n o tf

i n d a “ f a i ra n d j u s tr e a s o n ” t o j u s t i fy w i t hdr aw al of K i ng’ s gui l t ypl ea be caus e he f ai l ed to s at i s fy e ith e r th e f

irst o r se c o n d p ro n g o f

th e tes t. T h e re f

o re , w e h o ld t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t di d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdeni ed K i ng’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw gui l t ypl ea. 8w as w ai vi ng. K ing also ap p ea ls th e d en ial o f th e G o v ern m en t’ s 9 m ot i on for a d o w nw ar d departur e fors ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance under§ 5K 1. 1. B utw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew s uch a de ni al unl es s t he D i s t r i ctC our tw as unaw ar e of i t s di s cr et i on t o gr ant t he mot i on, U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 332- 33 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), abr ogat ed on other gr ounds by K i m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U

. S. 85 ( 2007) , and K i ng does notar gue thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tl acke d s uch know l edge. 26 V.
W e now t u r n t o Ki n g ’ s a p p e a l o f h i s s e n t e n c e . Ki ng a c k n o w le d g e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyc a lcu late d h is i ni t i al G ui del ines range, butcl ai m s i terr ed w hen rul i ng on v ariou s d ep arture m o ti o n s an d fa il ed to g ran t him a d o w n w ard v arian ce u n d er 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 (a).
A t s t ep t w o of the t es t w e es t abl i s hed i n U ni t ed Stat es v. G u n te r , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , t he D i s t r i ctC o u rt deni ed the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e for a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib il ityu n d e r U S S G § 3 E 1 .1 , w h ile i m pos i ng a fi ve l evel upw ar d departur e forag g ravat i ng ci rcum st ances u nd er § 5 K 2

. 0. K i ng app eal s both of those deci s i ons , w hi ch w e r evi ew forabuse of di s cr et i on. U

ni t ed 9 Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F

. 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 -68 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ) ( en banc ).
A.27 T he D i s t r i ctC our t deni ed t he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on for a t w o- l evel r educt i on for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi li tyunder § 3 E 1 .1 b e c a u se K in g o b stru c ted th e in v e stig a tio n , subsequ e n tly den i ed elem ents of th e cri m e, and blam ed h i s cr i m e on other s, inclu d ing the victi m . K ing claim s h e is en ti tl ed to the d ep arture b ec au se h e sa v ed taxp ay ers the co st o f a tri al, assisted the F B I, and surr ender ed prompt l y . T he G ui del i nes r equi r e a de fenda nt t o “ c l ear l y demonst r a t e[] acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , ”§ 3E 1. 1( a) , and w e gi ve t he D i s t r i ctC our t“gr eat def e r e n c e o n r e v i e w, ” b e c a u s e “ th e s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e i s i n a uni que pos i t i on t o eva luate the def endant ’ s acc ept ance of r es pons i bi li t y . ” I

d. A p p . N o te 5 ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. D ul l um , 5 6 0 F

. 3 d 1 3 3 , 1 4 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ).
T he D i s t r i ctC our tbas ed i t s d ec isi on on t he G ui del i nes A p p licat i on N otes , w hich outl i ne som e of the app ropri ate f a c to rs to c o n sid e r in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a d e f e n d a n t “c lea rly d em ons t r at e[d] ” ac cept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y . T hes e fa ct ors i ncl ude admi t t i ng al l el emen ts o f t he off ens e and “ r el evant conduct , ” vol unt ar i l yas s i s t i ng i n t he i nves t i gat i o n , s urr ender i ng to au t hor i t i es pr om pt l yand vol unt ar i l y , and t i m el yacc ept i ng r e s p o n s ib ility. See § 3E 1. 1 A pp. N ot e 1( a) , ( d) , ( e) & (h). I n c o n tra st, f

a c to rs th a t sh o w lac k o f a c c e p tan c e in c lu d e “ f

a lse ly den[y i ng] , or fr i vol ous l y cont es t [i ng] , r el evantconductt hatt he cour t det erm i nes t o be true, ” I d. A pp. N ot e 1( a) , and r ece i vi ng a n u p w a rd d e p a rt u re u n d e r § 3 C 1 .1 f o r o b s t r u c tio n . § 3 E 1 .1 A pp. N ot e 4 ( t he obstruct i on enhanc ement “or di nar i l yi ndi cat es th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t h a s n o t ac c e p ted re sp o n s ib ili tyf o r h is co n d u ct”).K i ng al s o ar gues thatent er i ng a gui l t ypl ea, byi t s el f, 10 aut om at i cal l yent i t l es hi m t o a one- l evel departur e under D ul l um . A s t he D i s t r i ctC our texpl ai ned, how ever , ent er i ng a gui l t y pl ea does not ent i t l e a defe ndantt o the § 3E1. 1 adj us t m ent “as a m at t er of r i gh t

. ” § 3E 1. 1 A pp . N ote 3. W e did not r everse the D is tr ict C o u rt ’s gra n t of su ch a o n e-lev el do w n w ard departur e i n D ul l um b e c a u se th e iss u e w a s n o t ra ise d o n a p p e a l. 28 A l t hough K i ng pr om pt l y s urr ender ed t o pol i ce, admi t t ed h is cri m inal co n d u ct t o the F B I, an d p lead ed g u ilty, the rec o rd i s r epl et e w i t h ot herevi dence t hathe di d notacc ept r es pons i bi l i t y . Fi r s t , K i n g ’s i ni t i al admi s s i ons and gui l t ypl ea w er e underm i ned w hen he r eca nt ed s om e of thos e admi s s i ons and l at er s ought t o w i t hdr aw hi s gui l t y pl ea, cl ai m i ng he w as not gui l t y . S econd, aft eradmi t t i ng cr i m i nal i nt entdur i ng hi s pl ea col l oquy , K i ng l at err ai s ed s peci ous arg um ent s deny i ng as m uch. T hi r d, K i ng r ece i ved a § 3C1. 1 upw ar d dep artur e for obs t ruct i on of j us t i ce be caus e he de s t r oy ed thr ee ha r d d ri v es c o n t a i n i n g e v i d e n c e a n d t a u g h tA m e r i n e h o w t o d e s t r o y a comput er ’ s har d dr i ve. Fi nal l y

— and mostr emar kabl y

— K i ng h a s c o n sis ten tlya ttem p ted to b lam e o th e rs f o r h is re p re h e n sib le c o n d u c t. H e b lam e d L a rk in f o r p re ss u rin g h im to h a v e se x w ith P eanu t , cl ai m i ng he d ecl in e d h e r of fers for a few day s. M ost d i s tu rb i n g l y , Ki n g e v e n b l a me d h i s two - y e a r - o l d v i c t i m, cl ai m i ng s he i ni t i at ed s om e s exual encount er s bycl imbi ng on hi s l ap. F o r a ll th e f

o re g o in g re a so n s, a m p le e v id e n c e su p p o rts t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on for d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e f

o ra c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. 105 6 0 F

. 3 d at 1 4 2 n . 8

. W e did, ho w ev er, de n ythat the d ep arture w a s re q u ir e d

. I

d. 29 B.
K i ng r ece i ved a f

i ve l evel upw ar d departur e under § 5K 2. 0( a) ( 1) ( B ) , w hi ch appl i es w hen “ther e exi s t s an aggr avat i ng ci r cumst ance of a ki nd, ort o a de g r ee, not adequa t el yt aken i nt o cons i der at i on byt he Sent enci ng C o m m issi o n in fo rm u lat ing the g u idelines

. ” T h e D istri ct C o u rt fo u n d tw o ag g rav ati n g circu m stan ce s: (1) sub seq u en t st atuto ry and G u idelines am en d m en ts sho w that the a p p li ca b le G ui del i nes d o nots uffi ci ent l ypuni s h the cr i m e; and ( 2) K i ng’ s pat t ern of se x u a llya b u sin g m in o rs, in c lu d in g h is o w n d a u g h ter , p lac e s h is conductout s i de the hea r t l and and w arr ant s gr eat erpuni s hm ent t han the or di narycas e. K i ng first ar gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our tvi ol at ed the G ui d e l i n e s ’ ma n d a t e t o a p p l yt h e l o werl e v e l whe n t h e r e has been a n amendm ent , byr el y i ng on G ui del i nes amendm ent s that p o st- d ated h is co n d u c t. U S S G § 1 B 1

. 1 1

. C o n tr aryto K ing ’s a rg u m e n t, th e D istr ic t C o u rt d id n o t a p p ly the s ubs equent amendm ent

. R ather , i tcons i der ed the C o n g res s i onal fi ndi ng b e h in d th o se a m e n d m e n ts t o a sc e rta in w h e th e r th e a p p lica b le G uidel i nes pu nis h h i s cr i m e adeq uatel y . G i ven C on gress ’ s i gni fi cantr ol e i n s ent enci ng, i t s fi ndi ng on the ade quacy of the G u id e lin e s is a n a p p ro p ria te c o n s id e ra tio n . “It is, a f ter a ll, C o n g re ss -n o t th e ju d icia ry -[ w h ich ] i s v e ste d w ith th e a u th o rity t o d e f i n e , a n d a t t e mptt o s o l v e . . . s o c i e t a l pr obl ems. ” U ni t ed S ta tes v . P o lk , 546 F. 3d 74, 76 ( 1s tC i r . 2008) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons30 and quot at i ons om i t t ed)

. A l t hough K i ng corr ect l ynot es t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u r t ’ s r el i ance on C ongr es s i onal fi ndi ngs w as bas ed on deci s i ons of the Fi r s t , Fourth and S eventh C i r cui t s , r ather t han thi s C our t , w e now j oi n thos e c o u rt s in hol di ng t hats uch re lia n c e is p ro p e r. See i d. ; U ni t ed Stat es v. G r igg , 442 F. 3d 560, 5 6 4 -6 5 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); U ni t ed States v. Hecht , 470 F. 3d 177, 1 8 2 (4th C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ).
K ing al s o cl ai m s t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d nothave a n adequa t e bas i s forfi ndi ng hi s conductout s i de the hea rt l and beca us e i t fai l ed t o ci t e s t at i s t i cs . B utw e have neverr equi r ed a D is tr ic t C o u rt to c i t e s ta tis tic s in s u p p o rt o f its § 5 K 2 .0 det erm i na t i o n s . I n s t e a d , w e have es t abl i s hed the fol l ow i ng t hr ee s t eps : ( 1) “i dent i fyt he fa ct ororfac t or s t hatpot ent i al l yt ake the cas e out s i d e the G ui del i nes ’ ‘ heart l and’ and make i ts peci al or u n u su a l”; (2 ) “ d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e G u id e lin e s f o rb id departur es bas ed on the fa ct or , encourag e depa r tur es bas ed on t he fa ct or , ordo notm ent i on t he fact or at al l ”; and (3) fol l ow t he rul e fr om s t ep tw o and, i f unm ent ion ed , “t he courtm us t , aft er cons i der i ng t he s t ructur e and t heory of bot h r el evanti ndi vi dual gui del i nes and the G ui del i nes t aken a s a w hol e, deci de w hether [th e f ac tor] i s su ff

ici en t t o take the c ase o u t o f th e G u ideline’s heart l and. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. I

annone , 1 8 4 F

. 3 d 2 1 4 , 2 2 6 (3d C ir

. 1999) ( ci t i ng and qu ot i ng Koon v. U ni t ed Stat es , 518 U

. S. 81, 9 4 -96 (19 9 6 )). In a d d it ion to th e a b u se o f d iscreti o n stan d ard ap p li ed to se n tenc in g d eterm ination s, the D istri ct C o u rt ’s § 5K 2. 0 det erm i nati o n i s ent i t l ed t o hei ght ened de fer ence beca us e di s t r i ctcou rt s “s ee manym or e G ui del i nes cas es than appel l at e court s do, ” w hi ch gi ve them an “i ns t i tut i onal advant age . . . overappel l at e court s i n det erm i ni ng w hethert he fac t s of a gi ven ca s e t ake i t out of t he ‘ heart l and’ of G ui del i nes31 cas es . ” I annone , 184 F. 3d at 227 ( ci t i ng and quot i ng Koon , 518 U

. S

. at 98 ).
T he D i s t r i ctC our ti dent i fi ed K i ng’ s pat t ern of r epea t ed s exual abus e as t he fa ct or th at t akes hi s conductout s i de the heart l and of the off

ens e. T he G ui del i nes underw hi ch the D i s t r i ctC our tenhanc ed K i ng’ s advi s orys ent enci ng r ange acc ount fort he vi ct i m ’ s age, the def endant ’ s r es pons i bi l i t yfor t he vi ct i m ’ s car e and t he us e of a comput er i n the o ff ense. §§ 2 A3. 1 ( a ) , ( b ) ( 2 ) ( A) , ( 3 ) , ( 6 )

. But t h o s e Gui d e l i n e s d o not ta k e in to a c c o u n t K in g ’s r e p e a ted a b u se o f h is d a u g h ter o r h is on l i ne p redat i on of m i no rs . A l t hough K i ng w as notcr i m i nal l ychar ged forabusi ng h is d a u g h te r, i t w a s p ro v e d re le v a n t c o n d u c t. See U ni t ed Stat es v . W a tts , 519 U

. S. 148, 156 ( 1997)

. I n addi t i on t o the damni ng e- m ai l s , K i ng admi t t ed t o A gent K y l e, and l at erP rob at i on O ff ice r N o ll, that h e p erf o rm ed o ral sex o n h is da u g h ter, e x p lain in g th a t itsta rte d w h e n sh e h a d a d iap e r ra sh a t six m o n th s o ld a n d c o n tin u e d b e c a u s e “ it m a d e h e r f e e l g o o d .”
I n addi t i on t o s exual l y abus i ng hi s daught er , K i ng s pent “cou ntl ess hours” o nli ne t al king t o y ou ng gir l s to, i n h i s w ords, “s exual l yi ni t i at e” them and to sa t i s fyhi s des i r es . H e t aught th e m h o w to m a s tu r b a te a n d se n t th e m p ictu re s o f c h ild por nogr aphyand hi s ow n geni t als. K i ng r eques t ed pi ctur es of t h e m a n d a s k e d f

o rt h e i ra d d r e s s e s t o a r r a n g e e n c o u n t e r s . He ev en br agged t o ot her s w i t h s i m i l arpr edi l ect i ons abouthow m anygi r l s h e enga ged onl i ne. T hus , a pl ethor a of e vi dence su p p o rts th e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t K in g re p e a ted lyT hatG ui del i ne al s o pr ovi des a fi ve- l evel u p w ard 11 d e p a rt u re f

o r d is tr ib u tin g c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yto a m in o r, § 2 G 2 .2 (b )(2 )(C ), an d se v e n lev e ls f o r d istrib u tin g w ith in ten t to per s uade, i nduce orfac i l i t at e the mi nor ’ s tr av el i ng fors exual co n d u ct. § 2 G 2

. 2 (b)(2 )(D ). B o th o f th o se o ff en ses a re anal ogous t o K i ng’ s onl i ne pr ow l i ng. 32 s exual l yabus ed mi nor s and thats uch abus e w as notcover ed by t he ap pli cable G uidel i nes. T h e G ui del i nes l i s t i ng encour aged a nd di s cour aged fac t or s fordepartur es do not m ent i on r epea t ed abus e. §§ 5H 1. 1- 1

. 1 2 , 5 K 2

. 0 -2.23

. C o n seq u en tl y , at st ep three the D istri ct C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t K in g ’s p a ttern o f se x u a l a b u se w a s su f f icie n t to t ake hi s cas e out s i de the hea r t l and i n l i ght of s i m i l arG ui del i nes th a t co n ta in e n h a n c e m e n ts f o r re c u rr in g a b u s e . See I annone , 1 8 4 F

. 3 d a t2 2 8

- 2 9 ( ma k i n g t h i s d e t e r mi n a t i o n b a s e d o n “ t wo are as o f the G u idelines [th at] pro v ide s p ec ifi c b ase s fo r up w ard depar tur es bas ed on conduc ts i m i l ar ” t o the def endant ’ s )

. For exampl e, s om e chi l d pornogr aphyoffe ns es w arr anta fi ve- l evel upw ar d departur e for“a pa t t ern of act i vi t y i nvol vi ng t he s exual abus e orexpl oi t at i o n of a mi nor . ” § 2G 2. 2( b) ( 4)

. T he 11 A ppl i cat i on N ot es expl ai n t hat“patt ern” means “tw o orm o re s epar at e i ns t ance s ” of th e conduct , r egar dl es s of w hethert hey “( A ) occurr ed dur i ng the cour s e of the off ens e; ( B ) i nvol ved the s ame ordi ffe r entvi ct i m s ; or( C ) re su lt ed i n a convi ct i on for s uch conduc t

. ” I

d. A pp. N ot e 1. E ven though t hat

“ e n h a n c e m e n t d o e s n o t ap p lyto [ K in g ’s] c o n d u c t, i ts ra tio n a le does

. ” I annone , 184 F. 3d at 228. H e re peat edl ys exual l yabus ed b o th h is d a u g h ter a n d P e a n u t. A s § 2 G 2 .2 (b )(4 ) sh o w s, th is33 r e p e a t e d a b u s e c r e a t e s s o c i a l h a r m t h a ti s n o ta d d r e s s e d b y a G ui del i ne t hat appl i es t o a s i ngl e i ns t ance of abus e. T her efor e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n depart i ng bas ed on K i ng’ s r epea t ed abus e. Onc e t h e Di s tr i c t Cou r t f o u n d t h a t a d e p a r t ur e w as appr opr i at e, i tw as al so req u i r ed t o s etthe amountof the d e p a rt u re b y“ a n a lo g iz in g to e x is tin g G u id e lin e s p ro v is io n s .” I annone , 1 8 4 F

. 3 d at 22 9

. Im p o rt an tl y , “[ w ]e a re d ea li n g h ere w i t h anal ogi es to th e gu idelines , w h ich are ne ce ssaril ym o re open- t ext ur ed than appl i cat i ons of the gui del i nes . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B aird , 1 0 9 F. 3d 856, 872 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( ci t at i on o m itted). H ere , § 2 G 2

. 2 (b) (5 ) pro v ides a f ive-lev el up w ard departur e for“a pa t t ern of ac t i vi t yi nvol vi ng t he s exual abus e or ex p loit ati o n o f a m in o r, ” w h ich is co n sist en t w ith K ing ’s conduct

. T he ana l ogous G ui del i nes cont ai n departur es of fi ve, s even, and el eve n level s . H er e, the D i s t r i ctC our tadopt ed the l ow es tof thos e, w hi ch w as notan abus e of di s cr et i on. C.
A ft eres t abl i s hi ng K ing ’s G u idelines im p ri so n m entr ange as 360 m ont hs t o l i fe, t he D i s t r i ctC our tappl i ed the fa ct or s of 18 U

. S. C

. § 3553( a) and det erm i ned t hat 360 m ont hs i ncar cer at i on w as j us tand re as onabl e. K i ng cl ai m s hi s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yand s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. A s a mat t erof pr ocedur e, t he s ent enci ng cour tm us tgi ve “rat i on al and m eaningfu l con si derat i on ” t o the § 3 35 3( a ) fact ors. U ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 475 F. 3d 55 6 , 571 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( en b an c). W e d o n o t r eq u ir e the D istri ct C o u rtto ad d ress e v ery34 fac t or , as l ong as “the rec o rd m akes cl ear ” thati tcons i der ed e a c h f a c to r. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at568. A ddi t i onal l y , the D i s t r i ct C ou rtm aydecide ho w m uch dis cussion each fact or w arr ants

. U n itedS ta tes v . R ita , 55 1 U

. S

. 33 8, 3 5 6 -5 7 (200 7). A s a s ubs t ant i ve mat t er , t he D i s t r i ctC our tm us tr eas onabl y appl ythe § 3 55 3(a) fact ors based on the to talityof the ci rcum st ances. C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 3 2 9 -3 0 ; Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at567.
W e r evi ew bot h pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve d e te rm in a tio n s f

o r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at567. If th e re a re n o p ro c e d u ra l er ro rs, o u r su b sta n tiv e re v iew is h ig h lyd e f

e re n tia l a n d w e w ill a f f irm “ u n les s n o re a so n a b le s ent enci ng cour tw oul d have i m pos ed t he same se nt ence on that p a rt ic u la r d e f

e n d a n t f o r t h e re a s o n s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p ro v id e d .” I d. at568.
K i ng cl ai m s t he D i s t r i ctC our tfai l ed t o gi ve meani ngful c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o h i s “ h i s t o r ya n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , ” 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , b e c a u s e i td i d n o tc o n s i d e rth a th e c a me f r o m a “br oken home” and w as hi m s el f a vi ct i m of s exual abus e. T he G overnm entconce des thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s disc us s i on of K i ng ’s his t oryand charac ter ist i cs di d n ot m enti on tho se fact s, butnot es t h at t he D i s t r i ctC our taddr es s ed K i ng’ s hi s t oryof abus e i n t he cont exti n w hi ch i tw as r ai s ed.
D u rin g th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , K in g ’s a tto rn e yb rie f ly o u tl ined K ing ’s ch il d h o o d ab u se as a b asis fo r the D istri ct C o u rt t o fi nd hi m m ent al l yi n co m pet ent , oratl eas t“a da m aged per s on. ” C ouns el concl uded t hat poi nt bys ay i ng “the i dent i fi ed p rob lem s tha t M r. K ing h as are no t

. . . g en eti c . . . an d there fo re s om ethi ng had t o happen t o hi m . ” The D i s t r i ctC our taddr es s edK i ng ar gues thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l ycount ed 12 t he seve r i t y of t he cr i m e, hi s fai l ur e t o acc eptr es pons i bi l i t yand hi s obs t r uct i on w he n d e c i d i n g bot h depar t ur es and re a so n a b len e ss u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ). S u c h d o u b le c o u n tin g is a llo w e d , h o w e v e r. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F

. 3 d at 58 3 (“[ U ]nd er § 3 5 5 3 (a), t he D i str ict C our tw as perm i t t ed t o gi ve furt herw ei ghtt o a f a c to r c o v e re d b y a s p e c if ic G u id e lin e s p ro v isio n .”); U ni t ed Stat es v. G r eeni dge , 4 9 5 F

. 3 d 8 5 , 1 0 3 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ We emphasi ze thata s ent enci ng cour ti s notproh ibit ed fr om cons i der i ng t he factual bas i s under l y i ng a def endant ’ s s ent ence e n h a n c e m e n t [ in th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) a n a l y s is ], a n d in d e e d , sh o u ld 35 K in g ’s m e n tal h e a th iss u e s, “ a g re e [ in g ] w ith [ d e f e n se c o u n se l] t hat t her e ar e m yr i ad m ent al heal t h ques t i ons thatar i s e fr om the t es t i m ony t hat t hi s court has r ece i ved” butconcl uded thatK i ng w a s c o m p e ten t. A f

ter K in g ’s a tto rn e yd isc u ss e d th e a b u se in on l yon e sent ence, the D i stri ctC ou rtw as not r equ i red t o ad dress t he i s s ue i n det ai l , es peci al l ygi ven i t s cons i der abl e di s cr et i on. T her efor e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed no pr oce dur al err orat K in g ’s s e n te n c in g . See R ita , 551 U

. S. at356- 57.
A bs enta pr ocedur al err or , w e r evi ew K i ng’ s s ubs t ant i ve chal l eng es fo rabus e of di s cr et i on t o det erm i ne w hethert he § 3553( a) “fa ct or s w er e re as onabl y appl i ed t o the ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” Coo

per , 4 37 F. 3d at330. W e w i l l aff i r m i f a

“ r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c i n g c ou r t wo u l d h a v e i mp o s e d t h e s a me s ent ence on t hat par t i cul ar defe ndant for t he r eas ons the di s t r i ct cour tpr ovi ded. ” Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at 568. K i ng r ai s es s ever al s ubs t ant i ve cha l l enges , none of w hi ch over comes t hi s hi gh hur dl e. 12cons i dert hos e fa ct s i n o rde r t o t ai l ort he s ent ence t o the d ef en d an t’ s ind ividu al circu m stan ce s. ”). 36 F i rs t , K i ng cl ai m s hi s sent ence is un reas on able because hi s conductw as notm or e s ever e than otherabus er s o f Peanut w ho recei ved short er s entences and b ecause h i s condu c tw as l ess s ever e than Lar ki n’ s , w ho al s o w as s ent ence d to 360 m onths i m pr i s onm ent

. A l t hough K i ng admi t s t hathi s con d u ct w as sev ere , h e arg u es that an o ther p erp etrator inf li cted w o rse h arm b yin f e c tin g P e a n u t an d h e r o ld e r sis ter w ith a se x u a lly t r ans m i t t ed di s eas e. Si m i l ar l y , K i ng ar gues t hathi s conductw as l ess s evere t han L arki n’s because she sou gh tou tm e n t o ab use h er ow n daught er . W e ar e unper s uaded byt hes e compar i s ons beca us e s ent enci ng di s par i t i es ar e unr eas onabl e onl yw hen the defe ndant s ar e s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed. 18 U

. S. C

. § 3553( a) ( 6) (re q u irin g th e se n ten c in g c o u rt to c o n sid e r “ th e n e e d to a v o id unw arr ant ed s e n t e nce di s par i t i es among defendant s w i t h s i m i l ar re c o rd s w h o h a v e b e e n f o u n d g u ilty o f s im ilar c o n d u c t”) ; s ee als o U ni t ed Stat es v. P arker , 462 F. 3d 273, 278 ( 3d C i r . 2006) (cit ing 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 (a)(6)).
T he D i s t r i c tCou rtp r oper l ydi s t i ngui s hed K i ng’ s conduct f ro m th a t o f

L a rk in a n d th e o th e r p e r p e tr a to rs. T h e o n ly perpetr at orconvi ct ed of the s ame cr i m e as K i ng r ece i ved a l o w e rs e n te n c e b e c a u s e , u n l i k e K i n g , h e a c c e p t e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, pr ovi ded s ubs t ant i al ass i s t ance , di d notobs t ructt he i nves t i gat i on and had a l ow er cr i m i nal hi s t ory . T he other perpetr at or s w er e s ent ence d fo r les s ercr i m es , di d nothave r egul arcont actw i t h Peanut , and di d notexer ci s e ca r e orcontr ol o v e r he r . As f

o rLa r k i n , s h e p l e a d e d g u i l t yt o a l e s s e rc r i meW e ca l l i t a “l es s er cr i m e” beca us e atal l r el evantt i m es 13 t he maxi m um s ent ence forK i ng’ s cr i m e of c onvi ct i on w as l i fe i m pr i s onm ent , 18 U

. S. C

. § 2 2 41( c) ( both befor e and a ft ert he 2 0 0 6 am en d m en t) , w h ere as th e m ax im u m sen tenc e f o r L ark in’s c ri m e o f c o n v ic tio n w a s 3 0 ye a r s im p ri s o n m e n t. 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 1 (am en d ed in 2 0 0 3 fro m 2 0 to 3 0 y ea rs). 37 t han K i ng. T hos e d i ffe r ence s j us t i fyK i ng’ s t erm of

13 in c a rc e ra tio n . See Parker , 462 F. 3d at278 ( hol di ng codefe nd ants w ere n o t si m i l arl ysi tuated becau se one h ad a les s ex tens ive c ri m inal h ist o ry ). Second, K i ng cl ai m s t hat t he D i s t r i ct C ou rt ’s s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel y unr eas onabl e beca us e i t di d notcons i derthe s i gni fi canc e of the abus e K i ng s uffe r ed as a chi l d. A s w e not ed pr evi ous l y , t hati s s ue w as cons i der ed and a ddr es s ed i n t he co n text in w h ich K ing ’s c o u n sel p rese n ted it. T h e D istri ct C o u rt di d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n t hi s r egar d.
T h ird , K in g c laim s h is s e n te n c e w a s s u b sta n tiv e ly unr eason ab le bec aus e the D i s t r i ctC our tl os tfocus on t he offe nderbeca us e of the appa l l i ng natur e of the co n ductand i gnor ed hi s m ent al heal t h i s s ues . T hi s ar gum ent i s bas ed on our deci s i on i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. O lhovs ky , w her e the def endantw as 1 8 y ea rs old w h en a rr e s ted an d p rese n ted s u b stan ti al ex p ert t es t i m onyt hathe had a uni quel y l ow chanc e of r eci di vi s m . 562 F

. 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 4 7 -50 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 9 ). F o r e x am p le, the e x p ert t est i fi ed thatt he def endant , w ho had “s ubnor m al s oci al d e v e lo p m e n t,” w a s s u c c e e d in g in tre a tm e n t an d lea rn in g to e n g a g e in a g e -a p p ro p ri a te re la tio n s h ip s . I d. at 543, 549- 51. T heK i ng al s o ar gues that t he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed by 14 cons i der i ng t he subs equent s t at ut or y an d Gui del i nes ame n d m en t s dur i ng i t s § 3553( a) det erm i nat i on. L i ke our an aly sis r eg ard ing d ep artures , it w as w ith in th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s di s cr et i on t o cons i ders ubs equen t am en d m en ts, w ith o u t app ly ing th e m , d u ri n g its § 3 5 5 3 (a ) d e te rm in a t io n . See U ni t ed Stat es v. G o ff , 501 F. 3d 250, 257 n. 12 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( r el y i ng on a su b seq u en t am en d m en t t o b o lst er it s h o lding the D istri ct C o u rt ’s sen tenc e w as u n rea so n ab le: the d e f e n d an t’ s “se n tenc e a p p ea rs even mor e unr eas onabl e w hen m eas ur ed agai ns tthe s ent enci ng r ange pr ovi ded i n s ubsequentver s i ons of the Sent enci ng 38 d i s tr i ctcour ti n O lhovs ky compl et el yi gnor ed thatex p ert t est i m on y , even err on eou sl yfi nd i ng t hat the d efen dan tw as not re s p o n d in g to tr e a tm e n t. I d. at548. Fur t herm or e, i tcomm i t t ed pr ocedur al err orbyi gnor i ng s ever al § 3553( a) fact or s and f o c u s in g so lel yo n “inc ap ac it ati o n , d e te rr e n c e , a n d p u n is h m e n t.” I d. at5 4 7 & 5 5 0 n. 18. A l t hough i ti s t rue thatw e found O lh o v s k y ’s s e n te n c e s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le , i d. at549- 51, o u r de cisi o n m u st be rea d in li g h t o f the d istri ct co u rt ’s pr ocedur al err or s , w hi ch “nece s s ar i l y r ai s e quest i ons aboutt he s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of [the] s ent ence . ” I d. at553.
W e di s agr ee thatK i ng’ s cas e i s anal ogous t o O lhovs ky

. H e re , the D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d n o p ro c e d u ra l er ro r a n d its des cr i pt i ons of K i ng’ s conduct as “al m os t naus ea i nduci ng” and

“ d i s tu rb in g l y s e r i o u s ” w e r e n o te r r o n e o u s . Q u i t e t o th e c o n t r a r y, t he D i s t r i ctC our t apt l y des cr i bed the natur e of K i ng’ s cr i m e of co n v ict ion an d relev an t con d u ct. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l aff irm K i ng’ s s ent ence . 14G u idelines ”). 39 V I.
Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e fi nd no err or i n the D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s d e c isio n s to d e n yK in g ’s m o tio n to su p p r e s s o r h is m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw gui l t y pl ea. W e al s o hol d t hat t he D ist r i ct C our t ’ s departur e rul i ngs w er e fr ee of err or and i t s appl i cat i on of the § 3553( a) fac t or s w er e ne itherpr ocedur al l ynor s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. W e w i l l the r efor e af fi r m the j ud gm ent of t he D i stri ctC ou rti n all res pects

.- 1- F U E N T E S , C i r cui tJudge , concurr i ng. I concurw i t h J udge H ar di m an’ s w el l

- cr aft ed and tho rou g h o p inion

. I ag ree w ith the m ajority ’s co n clus ion in P art III.A th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rl yd e n ied K in g ’s m o tio n to su p p re ss th e e v id e n c e f o u n d o n th e c o m p u ter se ize d f ro m h is hom e. I w r i t e s epar at el y , how ever , beca us e I be l i eve thatthe se izu re o f

K in g ’s c o m p u ter h a rd d ri v e w a s m o re p ro p e rly j us t i fi ed on the we l l

- s e tt l ed gr ound of exi gentci r cumst ance s and t hatt he maj or i t yneed nothave a dopt ed a n ew rul e of co ns t i tut i onal l aw r es tr i ct i ng G eor gi a v. R andol

ph t o s e a r c h es of the home. 547 U

. S. 103, 122–23 ( 2006)

. I n R andol ph , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hata pr es entcot enantcoul d r efus e cons ent t o a p o l i c e s e a r c h , r e g a r d l e s s o f th e c o n s e n to f

a f e l l ow o c c u p a n t. T he exi gentci r cumst ances exce pt i on t o the w arr ant re q u ir e m e n t is w e ll- e s ta b lis h e d

. See, e. g. , I l l i nois v. McArthur , 531 U

. S. 326, 337 ( 2001) ( Sout er , J

. , concurr i ng) ( not i ng that t he l i kel i hood t hat pr oper t y can be des t r oy ed “i n ant i ci pat i on of a w arr ant exempl i fi es t he ki nd of pr es entr i s k thatunder gi r ds t he acc ept ed exi gentci r cums t ance s exce pt i on t o t he gene r al w arr ant re q u ire m e n t”) ; C ou den v. D uff y , 4 4 6 F

. 3 d 4 8 3 , 4 9 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ); accord S c h m e rb e r v . C a lif o rn ia , 384 U

. S. 757, 770–71 ( 1966)

. I m por t ant l yfort hi s cas e, exi gentci r cumst ance s i ncl ude th e p re v e n tio n o f

th e “ im m in e n t d e s tru c tio n o f e v id e n c e .” Coude n , 4 46 F. 3d at496 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks & ci t at i on o m itt e d ); accord Schm er ber , 384 U

. S. at770–71. I n the cont ext of the des t ruct i on of evi dence , w e have desc ri bed the exi gent ci rcum st ances i nq uiryas fol l ow s: W h e n G o v e rn m e n t ag e n ts

. . . h a v e p ro b a b le- 2- c ause t o bel i eve contr aban d i s present and , in addi t i on, bas ed on the s urr oundi ng ci r cumst ance s o r th e in f

o rm a tio n a t h a n d , the yre a so n a b ly concl ude thatt he evi dence w i l l be dest roy ed or re m o v e d b e f

o re th e y c a n se c u re a se a rc h w a rra n t, a w arr ant l es s s ear ch i s j us t i fi ed. U n itedS ta tes v . R u b in , 4 7 4 F

. 2 d 2 6 2 , 2 6 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 3 ). A r evi ew of the r ecor d i n ourcas e demonstr at es t hatt he sei zur e of the comput erw as cl ear l yj us t i fi ed underthe exi gent ci rcu m s t ance s exce pt i on. A s the D i s t r i ctC our tfound, “K i ng w ou l d h ave p ossess ed the op po rtun i t y t o t am per w i t h o r di spose of the [c om put er ] i n t he i nt er i m ” bef or e the off

i cer s r etr i eved a s ear ch w arr ant

. ( A pp. at 28. ) T hi s fi ndi ng i s r evi ew ed forcl ear e rr o r. U ni t ed Stat es v. C ol es , 437 F. 3d 361, 366 ( 3d C i r . 2006) (c itatio n o m itt e d ). T h e o f f ice rs p o ss e ss e d p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t th e c o m p u ter c o n tain e d e v id e n c e o f a c rim e , n a m e ly i m ages of chi l d po rno g r aphy

. W hen O ffi cerK y l e ent er ed the t r ai l er i n E m por i um , Penns y l vani a, he r ecogni zed i t as the l ocat i on w her e the pornogr aphi c vi deo of L arki n’ s daught erw as m ade. M cC ul l en t ol d K y l e t hat w hen L arki n l eft , s he t ook her d a u g h ter a n d h e r c o m p u ter w ith h e r, g iv in g th e o f f ice rs p ro b a b le c a u se to b e liev e th a t th e c o m p u ter c o n tain e d e v id e n c e o f c h ild por nogr aphyand th at it w oul d be found a tL arki n’ s r es i dence

. T he off i cer s coul d al s o r eas onabl yconcl ude thatthe evi dence on the co m p u ter w o u ld b e d estroy ed o r rem o v ed b yK ing b ef o re th e yc o u ld re tu rn w ith a w a rra n t. C o m p u ter -b a se d e v id e n c e is r eadi l yt amper ed w i t h, and, gi ven Lar ki n’ s arr es t , K i ng had a m ot i vat i on t o des t r oyanyi ncr i m i nat i ng evi dence on t he comput er . A ccord ing ly , the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s fi ndi ng t hatK i ng h a d t h e o p p o r tu n i t yt o t a mpe rwi t h th e c o mpu t e rwas n o tc l e ar- 3- err or , and t he w arr ant l es s s ei zur e w as j us t i fi ed based on exi gency . I w oul d aff

i r m t he deni al of the s uppr es s i on m ot i on on t hi s gr ound. R athert han af

fi r m i ng t he D i s t r i ctC ourt o n the bas i s of exi gentci r cumst ances, the maj or i t yadopt s a narr ow i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f R a ndol ph that li m it s the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s hol di ng i n t hatcas e t o r es i dence s and does noti ncl ude per s onal eff ect s . I r es pect ful l y di s agr ee w i t h t hi s appr oach. Prudent i al p r i nci pl es couns el i n favorof dec i di ng the i ns t antcas e on the bas i s of w el l

- es t abl i s hed pre cede nt r ather t han re achi ng a novel ques t i on of Four t h A m endment l aw . A s w e can uphol d the s ei zur e of the com put er as nece s s aryt o pr eventt he des t ruct i on of evi dence , I w oul d do j us tt hat. M or eover , t hi s appr oach w oul d nots ubs t ant i al l y hi nder l aw enfor cement

. T he pr es ence of an obj ect i ng co- ow neri s r el evantt o t he det erm i nat i on of w h ethe r “the ev iden ce w il l be d estroy ed o r re m o v ed b ef o re [off i cer s ] can s ecur e a s ear ch w arr ant

. ” R u b in , 474 F. 2d at268. T he Supr eme C our tnot ed as m uch i n R andol ph : Som et i m es , of cour s e, the veryexcha nge of i nform at i on . . . i n fr ont of the o bj ect i ng i nhabi t antm ayr endercons ent i r r el evantby c re a tin g a n e x ig e n c yth a t ju stif ies im m e d ia te act i on on t he pol i ce’ s par t ; i f the obj ect i ng t enant c a n n o t b e in c a p a c itate d f ro m d e st r o y in g e a sily d isp o sa b le e v id e n c e d u rin g th e tim e re q u ire d to get a w arr ant , a fa i r l yper cei ved nee d t o acton t he s pott o p res erve evi dence m ayj us t i fyentr yand s e a rc h

. . . . 547 U

. S. at117 n. 6 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i tt ed)

. A s ant i ci pat ed- 4- b yth e S u p re m e C o u r t, K in g ’s p re se n c e in th e h o m e , h is obj ect i on t o t he s ei zur e, and the ea s e w i t h w hi ch he c oul d have tam p e re d w ith th e e v id e n c e c re a ted a “ n e e d to a c t o n th e sp o t” t hat j ust i fi ed the officer s’ act i on s. Fi nal l y , I am concerned thatt he rul e cr aft ed byt he m a jo rityh a s th e p o ten tial to p e rm it an e n c ro a c h m e n t o n F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts in c irc u m sta n c e s in w h ich so c ietyw o u ld re c o g n iz e a re a s o n a b le e x p e c ta tio n o f p ri v a c y . R andol

ph in stru c ts th a t “[ t]h e c o n sta n t ele m e n t in a ss e ss in g F o u rth A m endment r eas onabl enes s i n t he cons ent cas es . . . i s the gr eat s i g n if i canc e gi ven t o w i del ys har ed s oci al expec t at i ons . ” 547 U

. S. at 1 1 1

. I do not agr ee w i t h t he maj or i t yt hat , bys har i ng ow ner s hi p i n per s onal pr oper t y , an i ndi vi dual w ho i s pr es entat t he t i m e tha toffi cer s s eek t o s ear ch ors ei ze thatpr oper t yhas lo st h is o r h e r rig h t to re f u se c o n se n t. Ta k e , f o r e x a mpl e , t h e s i tu a t i o n i n whi c h t w o coi nhabi t ant s s har e a f

oot l ockeri ns i de thei rcomm on r es i dence

. B ot h i n d ividu al s have a cce s s t o, and s t or e i t ems i ns i de, t he foot l ocker

. Fors afek ee p ing a nd pr i vacypurpos es , one i ndi vi dual has place d i ns i de of the foot l ockerphot ogr aphs d e p icti ng him eng aging i n co m prom i si ng , bu tl egal, con du ct. T he pol i ce a r r i ve atthe s har ed r es i dence, and the othercoi nhabi t antcons ent s t o t he s ei zur e of the foot lock erand the s ear ch of i t s cont ent s . T he per s on depi ct ed i n t he phot ogr aphs o b je c ts, f e a rin g th a t d isc lo su re o f th e p h o to g ra p h s c o u ld hum i l i at e hi m and harm hi s r eput at i on. U nderthe appr oach t aken byt he maj or i t y , bys har i ng t he foot l ocker , he has for fei t ed h is e x p e c ta ti o n o f

p riv a c yin th e p h o to g ra p h s a n d h is rig h t toT he s i tuat i on w oul d be verys i m i l arw i t h r es pectt o a 1 self-stora g e u n itlease d b ytw o ind ividu als, b o th o f w h o m are pr es ent w hen pol i ce r eques t cons ent t o s ear ch the uni t

. K eepi ng per s onal eff

ect s s eg reg ated i n s uch a s t or age uni tthr ough t he u se o f lo c k s o r o th e r b a rrie rs w o u ld b e im p ra c tica l.

- 5- s hi el d t h em fr om vi ew . A n anal ogous s cena r i o i nvol vi ng a 1 s har ed com

pu t er on w hi ch one us erhas s t or ed compr om i s i ng d ig ita l phot ogr aphs can be eas i l yi m agi ned. T he maj or i t yr el i es heavi l yon t he pr i nci pal di s s ent i ng opi ni on i n R andol

ph , i n w hi ch C hi ef J us t i c e Rob e rt s e mph a s i zed t hat“i n cas es of s har ed i n fo rm at i on, paper s , cont ai ner s , or pl ace s . . . pr i vacyhas been s har ed w i t h another

. O urcomm on so c ial e x p e c tatio n s m a y w e ll b e th a t th e o th e r p e rso n w ill n o t, i n tu r n , sh a re w h a t w e h a v e sh a re d w ith th e m w ith a n other

— i ncludi ng t he p oli ce— bu tthat i s the ri sk w e t ake in s har i ng. ” 547 U

. S. at131. Posi t i ng exampl es t hatappea rt o be di r ect l yappl i cabl e t o the i ns ta ntcas e, t he C hi ef J us t i ce concl uded thatby s har i ng a l ockerora comput er , one co- ow ner has gi ven up hi s pri v ac y w ith r es pectt o t he otherand “as s um e[s ] t he r i s k t hatt ho se w ho have a cce s s t o and contr ol over hi s s har ed pr oper t y m i ght cons ent t o a s ear ch. ” I d. at134 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) ( a l t e r a t i o n i n o r i g i n a l )

. As t h e R andol

ph m aj or i t ycl ar i fi ed, how ever , the ca s es on w hi ch C hi ef J us t i ce Rober t s r el i ed w er e i nappos i t e i n one key a sp e c t— “ th e p o ten tial objec to r[ w a s] n e a rb y b u t n o t in v ited to t ake pa r ti n t he thr es hol d col l oquy . ” I d. at 121. A cknow l edgi ng t hati tw as “dr aw i ng a fi ne l i ne, ” t he C our tnonethel es s hel d t hat “a p hy sic a lly p re se n t in h a b itan t’s e x p re ss re f u sa l o f c o n se n t to- 6- a pol i ce se ar ch i s di s pos i t i ve as t o hi m , r egar dl es s of the cons ent of a f el l ow occupa nt

. ” I

d. at 12 1 , 1 2 3 (em p h asis ad d ed ). M yc o llea g u e s f

u rth e r a rg u e th a t, in w riting f o r th e C o u rt, J us t i ce Sout er decl i ned t o expr es s l y di s agr ee w i t h C hi ef J us t i ce R ober t s ’ s appr oach a s i tappl i ed t o per s onal t y ; t hey ci t e thi s as e v id e n c e th a t th e C o u rt’s in ten tio n w a s to re stric t it s h o ld in g to t he h om e. A s R andol

ph i nvol v ed the s ear ch of a hom e, and nott he s ear ch or seizu re of per s onal eff

ect s , I hes i t at e t o fi nd s uch meani ng i n J us t i ce Sout er ’ s s i l ence , part i cul ar l yw her e, und e rp ru d e n t i a l p r i n c i p l e s , we s h o u l d n o tb e a d d r e s s i n g the i s s ue i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . A s I d isc u ss a b o v e , w e n e e d n o t re s o lv e th is cons t i tuti onal i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr es s i on t o aff

i r m t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt’s d e n ial o f K in g ’s su p p re ss io n m o tio n . In ste a d , I w o u ld s i m pl yhol d t hatt he w arr ant l es s s ei zur e of the comput erw as j us t i fi ed bas ed on t he exi gentneed t o pr eventthe des t ruct i on of evi dence

.