NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0159n.06 Nos. 09-6166, 09-6167 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. J ERRY L EE McI

NTOSH, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

B e fo re : B AT CH EL DE R, C hie f Jud g e ; CLAY and SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e s.
S UT T ON , C i rc u i tJ u d ge. J erry L ee M cInt o s h p l ea d edgu i l t y t o t wo co u n t s o f p o s s es s i n g a computer c ontaining c hild pornog raphy and one count of making a counterfe it chec k. This was not M cInt o s h ’s first child pornog raphy conviction, and a s a re sult thi s one ca me with a ten- y ear
mand a tor y min imum sen te nc e . As a ll of Mc I nto sh ’s c ha lle ng e s to the se nte nc e fa ll s ho rt , w e a ff ir m.
I. On Aug ust 6, 2004, McI ntosh called a Tenne ssee deli and order ed over $500 of food. When the deli deliver ed the f

ood, McIntosh pa id w ith a counter feit chec k. Deli employ ees contac ted local police afte r the bank notified them that the chec k was invalid. Using the telephone number of the pe rs on wh o p la c e d th e or de r, of fi c e rs tr a c e d th e c he c k to Mc I nto sh , a nd the y arr e ste d h im.Nos. 09-6166, 09-6167

Un ite d S tat es v . M c In tos h

- 2 - Mc I nto shwa ive d h is Miranda rig hts, the n admitted that he used a counte rfe it-chec k-writing prog ram to manufa cture the che ck. The police asked to sear ch his computer, and he c onsented. A f o r e n s i c an a l ys i s o f

t h e c o mp u t e r

r e v e a l e d 3 5 i m a g e s o f

c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y. A fe dera l g rand jury char g ed McI ntosh with two counts of poss essing a computer containing imag es of child pornog raphy , 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)( 5)(B ), 2252A(b) (2), a nd one count of

making a counte rfe it check, id . § 513(a) . McIntosh pleaded guilty to the three counts without a Rule 11 plea ag ree ment. Be cause McIntosh had a prior conviction for c hild p o rnog raphy , he fa ced a ten-y ear statutory minimum sentenc e for

the two child pornog raphy counts. See id . § 2252A(b)( 2). The district court imposed a 120- month sentence
. II.
Mc I nto sh c ha lle ng e s the c on sti tut ion a lity of his statut or y min imum sen te nc e , cla imi ng it i s “cr uel and unusua l” under

the Eig hth Amendment. This constitutional guara ntee, howe ver, c overs

“ a na rr owpr op or

tio na lity pr inc ipl e ” tha

t “ fo rbid s only

e xtre me se nte nc e s th a t are g ro ssl y disproportionate to the c rime.” Harmelin v. M ichigan , 5 0 1 U
. S
. 9 5 7 , 9 9 7 , 1 0 0 1 ( 1 9 9 1 ) ( K e n n e dy, J., c on c ur ri ngin p a rt and c on c ur ri ngin t he jud g me nt) ; see id. a t 99 4 ( ma jor ity op .) (r e je c tin g c la im that mandatory

sentenc es ar e unconstitutional unless sentenc ing c ourts consider mitig ating fac tors); see G raham v. Florida , __ U.S . __, 130 S. Ct . 2011, 2021 (2010) ( treating Justi ce K ennedy ’s Harmelin concur

renc e as the “contr olling opini o n ”). The g uara ntee thus does not re quire that sentenc es be in “ strict proportion[] ” to their unde rlying c rimes. Ha rm e lin , 501 U.S. at 1001 (opinionNos. 09-6166, 09-6167

Un ite d S tat es v . M c In tos h

- 3 - of Ke nn e dy , J.) . “ [O]nl y

an e xtre me dis pa

ri ty be tw e e n c ri me and

sent e nc e of

fe nd s th e Ei g hth Amendment,” United States v. Mark s , 209 F.3d 577, 583 ( 6th Cir. 2000), as the cour ts give “substantial def

ere nce” to Congre ss’s sentenc ing policie s. Ha rm e lin , 501 U.S. at 999 (opinion of Kenne dy , J .).
Th e sh or t a ns we r t o M c I nto sh ’s c ha lle ng e is t hat a te n- y e ar s e nte nc e fo r t

his kin d o f c ri me is n e ith e r u

nu su a l no r d isp ro po rt ion a te to the un de rl y ing of fe ns e . Th is C ourt , to be sure , h a s y e t to enter tain an Eig hth A mendment challeng e to a ten-y ear sentenc e for a defe ndant convicted sole ly of
c hil d p or no g ra ph y of fe ns e s. B ut m any

of our s ist e r c ir c uit s h a ve a lr e a dy a dd re sse d th e 18 U. S.C. § 2252A enha

nceme nt in the context of child pornog raphy crimes; they have unf ailingly found that there is no violation of

the Eig hth Amendment. See, e .g. , United St ates v. Mac Ewan , 445 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (upholding 15-y ear sentenc e for

second c onviction for re ceipt of c hild pornog raphy ); Un ite d S tat es v . G ro ss , 437 F.3d 691 ( 7th Cir. 2006) (upholding 15- y ear senten ce for distribution of c hil d p or

no g ra ph y ); Un ite d St at es v. Mei ne rs , 4 85 F .3 d 1 21 1 ( 9th Cir . 2 00 7) (p e r c ur iam) (u ph old ing 15 -y e ar s e nte nc e fo r a dv e rt ise me nt o f c hil d p or no g ra ph y , d ist ri bu tio n o f c hil d po rn og ra ph y and po sse ssi on

of c hil d p or no g ra ph y ); United St ates v. Hay es , N o . 1 0
- 4 3 4 4 , 2 0 1 0 WL 50 65 99 1 ( 4th

Cir . D e c . 1 0, 20 10 ); Un ite d S tat es v . S ou le , 250 F. App’ x 834, 837–3 8 (10th Cir. 20 07 ); Un ite d S

tat es v . W e is , 487 F.3d 1148 (8th Cir. 2007) (upholding 15-y ear sentenc e for

rec eipt of child pornog raphy

under § 2 2 5 2, which is similar to § 2252A). We rea ch the same conc lusion here
. I n view of the “substantial defe renc e” we owe Congr ess in de fining cr i m es an d as sessingNos. 09-6166, 09-6167

Un ite d S tat es v . M c In tos h

- 4 - punishments, we ca

nnot say that a ten-y ear sentenc e is crue l and unusual punishment for the crimes of a r epeat offende r like McIntosh.
McIntosh has no answe rs t o this predic ament. He acknowledg ed at sentencing “that ther e’s
no c a se law that supp or

ts the c ha lle ng e s tha t we ’v e ma de .” R.1 05 a t 3. An d the on ly c a se c ite d in h is appellate br iefs in support of his ar g ument—an out-of- circ uit dist rict cour t case , see Uni ted States v. Farley , No. 1:07-CR-196-B BM, D.E . 106 (N.D. G a. Sept. 2, 2008)—has bee n overr uled. See United States v. Bre nton-Farley , 607 F.3d 1294 ( 11th Cir. 2010).
Mo vin g fr om o ne dif

fi c ult argume nt to a

no the r, Mc I nto sha lte rn a tiv e ly c la ims tha

t hi s
se nte nc e vio la te s th e Fift h A me ndme nt’ s D ue Pr oc e ss C la us e , w hic h a s a

ma tte r o f “ re ve rs e incorpora tion” picks up the equa l-protec tion gua rante es of the Fourte enth Amendment. See B olling v. Sharpe , 3 47 U. S. 4 97 , 4 99 –5 00 (1 95 4)
. He make s no c la im that he is a me mbe r of a su sp e c t c la ss or that a f undamental r ight is at stake , leaving him to arg ue that Cong ress’s policy lacks a rational basis. Se e City

of D all as v . S tan gli n , 490 U.S. 19, 25–26 (1989).
Mc I nto sh c ann ot ov e rc ome the de fe re nc e the Con sti tut ion g ive s to Con g re ss in makin g thi s ty pe of policy choice
. Congr ess added this mandatory minimum in what has c ome to be known a s the PROTECT Act, the Prosec utorial Remedies a nd Other Tools to e nd the Expl oitation of Children To da y Ac t of 20 03 , Pub
. L . N o. 10 8- 21 , 1 17 Stat. 6 50 . A tte mpt ingto p ro ve the ir ratio na lity

of thi s pr ov isi on , M c I nto shqu ote s v ari ou s se c tio ns of the Ac t’ s le g isl a tiv e his tor y to s ho w that Co ng re ss passed th e A c t to p u n is h p e o p le w h o in f li c t h ar m o n c h il dr e n d ir e c tl y , a s o p p o s e d to p e o ple likeNos. 09-6166, 09-6167

Un ite d S tat es v . M c In tos h

- 5 - McIntosh who possess imag es of c h i l d pornog raphy . Yet the se lected quotations do not t ell the whole st ory . The c ong ressional finding s show that the Act soug ht to further the g overnme nt’s “intere st in protecting children f rom those who sex ually exploi t them, including c hild molesters and child pornog raphe rs” a

nd that “this interest extends to stamping out the vice of child pornog raphy at al l lev e ls i n th e dis tri bu tio n c ha in .” Id. § 501 (empha sis added) ( codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2251 Note). Protec ting c h i l d ren from those who sexually exploi t them is a leg itimate objective of g o v e r n m e n t , an d

p u n i s h i n g t h o s e w h o c r e a t e a m ar k e tf o r t h i s e x p l o i t a t i o n

— e i t h e r o nt h e s u p p l y or the demand side —is a rational mea ns of acc omplishi ng that g oal. This sentenc ing policy survives the modest requir ements of r ational-ba sis review.
McIntosh nex t challeng es the district cour t’s calc u l at i o n o f hi s offe nse leve l, namely that McIntosh possessed “at least 10
. . . but f ewe r than 150” imag es of c hild pornog raphy , a finding that inc re a se d h is o ff

e ns e le vel fr om 1 6 to 18 . U .S. S.G . § 2G 2. 4( b) (5 )( A) (2 00 3) . Y e t, e ve n if thi s
argume nt w e re a c c e pte d, e ve n if ind e e d th is guid e lin e we re inv a lid (as McI nto sha lso argue s) , it would not a lter his 120- month mandatory minimum sentenc e. We “will not addre ss an alleg ed er ror in the offense leve l if the mandatory minimum penalty

trumps the g uideline ra

ng e,” United States v. W ashington , 112 F. App’x 501, 505 (6th Cir. 2004) , beca use the a lleg ed er

ror c ould not affe ct the sentenc e, United States v. Barne s , 49 F.3d 1144, 1150 ( 6th Cir. 1995).
McInt o s h ad d s that the sentenc e wa s substantively unrea sonable be cause the district court int imate d th a t it

wo uld have pr e fe rr e d to , b ut d id n ot, se nte nc e him be low the statut or

y min imum.Nos. 09-6166, 09-6167

Un ite d S tat es v . M c In tos h

- 6 - Yet “[w]hen a cour

t and a mandatory

minimum are in conflict, the minimum wins.” United States
v . Ce c il , 615 F.3d 678, 695 ( 6th Cir. 2010).
That leaves one f

inal ar gu m ent: that statutory minimum sentenc es violate sepa ration-of
power s principles bec ause the y remove judicial discretion in se ntencing . But “ the scope of judicial discretion with re spect to a sentence is subject to cong ressional c ontrol,” Mistretta v. United States , 488 U.S. 361, 364 ( 1989), and “Cong ress can c onstitut ionally eliminate all discre tion in sentencing judge s by establishing ma

ndatory sentenc es.” United States v. Dum as , 9 34 F .2 d 1 38 7, 13 89 –9 0 ( 6th Cir. 1990). Congr ess had the pow er to e nact this mandatory minimum sentenc e.
III
. F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.