# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 15 05

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ben jam an Sh el ab arg er, al so kn own as B en jam in Sh el ab arg er

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 11 , 20 14 Fil ed : Oct ob er 2 1, 2 01 4

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Ben jam an Sh el ab arg er was co nv ic te d by a jury of rece ip t of vi su al de pi ct io ns of m in or s en ga gi ng in se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t. The di st r i c t co ur t im po se d a 1

se nt en ce of 21 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Sh el ab arg er ap pe al s, arg ui ng th a t t he

The Hon or ab le James E. Grit zn er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on , th at hi s se n t e nc e vi ol at es th e

Eig ht h Am en dm en t, an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t in co rrec tl y cal cu la te d hi s of fen se le ve l

un de r th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (U.S.S.G. or Gui de li ne s)

. W e affi rm

.

I.

On Ja nu ary 2, 20 13
, Im

m ig rat io n an d Cu st om s Enfo rcem en t Sp e c i a l Age nt
Aaro n Sim on do wnl oa de d and id en ti fie d chi ld po rn og rap hy be in g sh ared th ro ug h a
fil e-s ha rin g pr og ram fro m an IP ad dr es s in th e area of W au ke e, Io wa. Si m on an d hi s

t e a m o b t a i ne d a warra nt an d se arch ed th e ho m e as so ci at ed wit h th e IP ad dr es s. Sh el ab arg er l iv ed at t he ho m e wit h h is ha lf s is te r Ang el a Fy le r, he r m ot he r, an d h is

ne ph ew N.F. Afte r a fo ren si c pr ev ie w, Si m on an d hi s te am se iz ed se ve ral co m pu te rs

an d dat a st or ag e de vi ces th at th ey su sp ect ed m ig ht co nt ai n ch il d po rn og rap hy. One
of th e de vi ces se iz ed was on e of Sh el ab arg er’s la pt op s. Si m on te st ifi ed th at whe n he
in te rv ie wed Sh el ab arg er, Sh el ab arg er ad m it te d to be i n g th e so le us er of th e la pt op , to ha vi ng an in te rm ed ia te un de rs ta nd in g of co m pu te rs an d a fam il ia ri t y w i t h fil esh ari ng pr og ram s, an d to us in g th e ARES fil e-s ha rin g pr og ram

. Fo ren si c an al y si s of
th e la pt op rev eal ed se ve ral fil es co nt ai ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy. So m e ti m e aft er the
in it ia l s earc h war ran t was ex ecu te d, Fyler co nt act ed Sim on ab ou t SD ca rd s s he an d
he r m ot he r ha d fo un d in si de a bo x of m at ch es ret rie ve d f r o m S h e l a ba rg er’s ro om

. Fy le r te st i f

i e d th at sh e ha d gi ve n Sh el ab arg er th e m at ch bo x as a Ch ris tm as gi ft.

Fo ren si c an al y si s rev eal ed th at th e SD card s co nt ai ne d nu m ero us im ag es an d vi de os th at co ns ti tu te d ch il d po rn og rap hy, as well as li nk fil e s s h o win g th at ch il d

po rn og rap hy on th e car ds ha d b een vi ewed on Sh el ab arg er’s l ap to p.

Evi de nc e at tri al in di cat ed th at fo u r m on th s be fo re th e se arch warra nt was

ex ecu te d, Sh el ab arg er ha d fo un d po rn og rap hy on th e fam il y ’s sh ared co m pu te r. The
fo ren si c pr ev i ew, ho wev er, di d no t rev eal an y tra ces of ch il d po rn og rap hy on th at

co m pu te r, an d Fy le r te st ifi ed at tri al t h a t a l t h ou gh th ey ha d co nf ro nt ed N.F. ab ou t

po rn og rap hy fo un d on th e m ai n c o mp u t e r , t he y ha d fo un d on ly ad ul t an d an im at ed

-2

-po rn og rap hy. The go ve rn m en t al so p r e s e n t e d ev id en ce th at m an y of th e fil es

c o n t a i ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy ha d ti m e st am ps th at co rres po nd ed wit h ti m es whe n N.F. was in sc ho ol

. Sh el ab arg er te st ifi ed th at Si m on ha d pu t a gu n in hi s face whe n h e an d hi s te am se arch ed th e ho m e, th at th ey ha d us ed co erci ve or ho st i l e in te rro ga ti on ta ct ic s, th at hi s la pt op was un us ab le

, an d th at he ha d ne ve r do wnl oa de d
ch il d p or no gr ap hy.

The jury fo un d Sh el ab arg er gu il ty of on e co un t of rece ip t of vi su al de pi ct io ns of m in or s en ga gi ng in se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t an d on e co un t of po ss es si on of ch il d

po rn og rap hy. To av oi d do ub le -jeo pa rd y is su es , th e go ve rn m en t di sm is se d th e ch arg e of po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d at se nt en ci ng th at

a pr ep on de ran ce of ev id en ce s up po rte d a pp li cat io n o f a 2 -le ve l en ha nc em en t u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .2(b )(3 )(F) fo r di st rib ut in g ch il d po rn og rap hy vi a th e fil e-s ha rin g
pr og ram

. Afte r ap pl y in g a 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru c t i o n of jus ti ce un de r U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1
, th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e ab ov e-d es cri be d se nt en ce of 21 0

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t.

II.

Sh el ab arg er arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce pr es en te d at tri al was i n s u ffi ci en t to

su pp or t h is co nv ic ti on . W e d is ag ree.

W he n rev ie win g th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev i d en ce su pp or ti ng a cri m in al

co nv ic ti on , we vi ew th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e pr os ecu ti on

. See
Ja ck so n v. Virg in ia

, 44 3 U.S. 30 7, 31 9 (1 97 9)

. W e wil l rev ers e on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Uni te d St at es

v. Bi rd in e, 51 5 F.3 d 84 2, 84 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e typic al ly do no t rev ie w qu es ti on s in vo lv in g th e cred ib il it y of wit ne s s e s be cau se su ch qu es ti on s are wit hi n th e jury’ s
pr ov in ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Hil l, 2 49 F.3d 70 7, 7 14 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1)

.

-3

-Sh el ab arg er was co nv ic te d of vi ol at in g 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2)

, whi ch m ak es

it a cri m e to “ kn owi ng ly rec ei ve [], or di st rib ut e[]” ch il d po rn og rap hy. Sh el ab arg er
arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t di d no t est ab li sh th at he was th e pe rs on who kn owi ng ly

rece iv ed or di st rib ut ed th e ch il d po rn og r a ph y at is su e. The go ve rn m en t, ho wev er,
pr es en te d am

pl e ev i de nc e—b ot h fo ren si c an d te st im on ia l— to su pp or t th e jury’ s fin di ng th at Sh el ab arg er was th e pe rs on who ha d rece iv ed or d i s t r i bu te d th e ch il d

po rn og rap hy. Sh el ab arg er w a s th e own er of th e la pt op th at fo ren si cs rev eal ed

co nt ai ne d se ve ral fi l e s co ns ti tu ti ng ch il d po rn og rap hy. Lin k fil es on th e SD card s fo un d in a m at ch bo x in Sh el ab arg er’s ro om sh owe d th at s o me o f th e ch il d

po rn og rap hy on th e fi le s h ad be en vi ewed on Sh el ab arg er’s lap to p. Bot h F y le r an d
he r m ot he r te st ifi ed t h a t th e m at ch bo x was Sh el ab arg er’s. Alt ho ug h Sh el ab arg er
pr es en te d a di ffer en t ve rs io n of th e st or y —i m pl y in g th at N.F. or a pr ev io us own er of
th e l a pt op was res po ns ib le fo r th e fil es —t he jury was en ti tl ed to m ak e cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns an d reject hi s th eo ry of th e cas e. See Uni te d St at es v. Man ni ng , 73 8
F.3 d 9 37 , 94 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (h ol di ng th at th e jury was free to reject a de fen da nt ’s
th eo ry th at he was no t th e on e res po ns ib le fo r th e ch il d po rn og rap hy). W e co nc lu de
th at th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt S he la ba rg er’s co nv ic ti on

.

III.

Sh el ab arg er as se rts th at hi s se nt en ce vi ol at es th e Eig h t h Am en dm en t. W e di sa gr ee.

W e rev ie w Eig ht h Am en dm en t ch al le ng es de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Van ho rn , 74 0 F.3d 11 66
, 11 69 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). Dete rm in in g whe th er a se nt en ce fo r a te rm of

y ears vi ol at es th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t in vo lv es two st ep s. Fi rs t, th e co ur t com pa res th e gr av it y of th e of

fen se to th e ha rs hn es s of th e pe na lt y , co ns id eri ng th e de fen da nt ’s

cu lp ab il it y an d th e ha rm or th reat of ha rm to th e vi ct im or to so ci et y

. See Hen de rs on v. Norri s, 25 8 F.3d 70 6, 7 09 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). Onl y if th is th res ho ld in qu iry le ad s to
th e in fere nc e th at th e se nt en ce is gr os sl y di sp ro po rti on at e to th e cri m e co m m it te d wil l

-4

-th e co ur t pro ceed to th e se co nd st ep : an in te r- an d in tra -juri sd ic ti on al an al y si s. See

id

. at 71 2. “ A se nt en ce wit hi n th e st at ut or y li m it s is ge ne ral ly no t su bjec t to [Eig ht h
Am en dm en t] rev ie w.” See Uni te d St at es v. Att eb erry, 4 4 7 F .3d 56 2, 56 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bo on e, 86 9 F.2 d 10 89
, 10 92

- 93 (8t h C ir. 1 98 9) ).

Sh el ab arg er’s se nt en ce is no t gr os sl y di sp ro po rti on at e t o t he gr av it y of hi s of fen se . She la ba rg er’s o ffen se was a ser io us cri m e th at ha rm ed m an y vi ct im s. See
Uni te d St at es v. W ei s, 48 7 F.3 d 11 48
, 1 1 5 3 ( 8t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (d es cri bi ng th e ha rm s

res ul ti ng fro m th e co ns um pt io n of ch i l d po rn og rap hy). As se t fo rth in th e Pres en te nc e Rep or t, Sh el ab arg er po ss es se d 17 1 vi de os an d 8 5 2 im ag es co nt ai ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy, in cl ud in g fil es th at de pi ct ed m in or s un de r th e ag e of tw e l v e or th a t w ere of a vi ol en t, sa di st ic

, or m as oc hi st ic na tu re. W he n co m pa red wit h th e
gr av it y of th e cri m e, Sh el ab arg er’s 21 0- m on th te rm of im pr is on m en t do es no t vi ol at e th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t.

IV.

Sh el ab arg er arg ue s th a t th e di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d hi s se nt en ci ng ran ge in co rrec tl y

. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact fo r cl ear erro r an d ex am in e it s in te rp ret at io n an d ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Mas he k,
40 6 F.3 d 10 12 , 1 01 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). The g ov ern m en t b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g th e ap pl ic ab il it y of an en ha nc em en t to th e of fen se le ve l, bu t th e de fen da nt be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g th e ap pl ic ab il it y of a red uc ti on to th e of fen se le ve l. Uni te d St at es

v. Din ge s, 91 7 F.2 d 11 33
, 11 35 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W il so n, 88 4
F.2 d 1 35 5, 1 35 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) ).

S h e l a b a r g e r co nt en ds th at he is en ti tl ed to a 2- le ve l red uc ti on in hi s of fen s e le ve l pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .2(b )(1 ). Thi s 2- le ve l red uc ti on is ap pl ic ab le whe n (1 ) th e ba se of

fen se le ve l wa s de te rm in ed to be 22 un de r § 2G2 .2(a )(2 ), (2 ) “ th e

-5

-de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t was li m it ed to th e rece ip t or so li ci ta ti on of ” ch il d po rn og rap hy,

an d (3 ) “ th e de fen da nt di d no t in te n d to tra ffi c in

, or di st rib ut e, su ch m at eri al [.]” U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 (b )(1 ).

Sh el ab arg er es se nt i al ly co nt en ds th at an y in di vi du al co nv ic te d of rece ip t of
ch il d p or no gr ap hy who h as a ba se of fen se le ve l of 22 and who do es no t “ in te nd ” to

tra ffi c or di st rib ut e th e un la wfu l m at eri al is en ti tl ed to th e 2- le v e l r ed uc ti on

. Sh el ab arg er’s read in g ig no res th e se co nd req ui rem en t for th e red uc ti on

. To qu al ify
fo r th e 2- le ve l red uc ti on , a de fen da nt ’s co nd uc t m us t ha ve be en “ li m it ed to th e rece ip t

or so li ci ta ti on of

” th e m at eri al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Ray, 70 4 F.3 d 13 07
, 13 13 (1 0t h
Ci r. 20 13 ) (“ The req ui rem en ts

. . . are co nju nc ti ve .”); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Fo re, 50 7 F.3 d 41 2, 41 5- 16 (6 th Ci r. 20 07 ). The di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d a di s t r i bu ti on

en ha nc em en t un de r § 2G2 .2(b )(3 ), so Sh el ab arg er’s c o nd uc t co ul d no t ha ve be en

“ li m it ed to th e rece ip t or so li ci ta ti on of ” ch il d po rn og rap hy. See Uni te d St at es v. 2

Bak er, 7 4 2 F

. 3 d 6 18
, 62 3- 24 (5 th Ci r. 20 14 ); Ray, 70 4 F.3 d at 13 13 -1 4. Si nc e Sh el ab arg er do es no t di sp ut e th e ap pl ic ab il it y of th e di st rib ut io n en ha nc em en t— an d
si nc e th ere was amp l e e v i d e nc e to su pp or t ap pl ic at io n of th e en ha nc em en t fo r di st rib ut io n of th e fil es co nt ai ni ng ch il d po rn og rap hy—Sh el ab arg er is no t en ti tl ed to
th e 2 -le ve l re du ct io n u nd er § 2G2 .2(b )(1 ).

Sh el ab arg er po in ts to th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on’ s “ Re as on fo r A m endm en t” 2 (RFA), whi ch st at es th at “ in di vi du al s co nv ic te d of rece ip t of ch il d po rn og rap hy wit h

no in te nt to tra ffi c or di st rib ut e th e m at eri al es se nt ia ll y wil l ha ve an ad jus te d of fen se le ve l of le ve l 20
, as op po se d to

. . . le ve l 22

. . . pr io r to ap pl ic at io n of an y ot he r sp eci fic of

fen se ch ar a c t e ris ti cs .” U.S.S.G. M an ua l ap p. C, am en d. 66 4 (2 01 1)

. To th e ex te nt th at it gl os se s ov er th e se co nd req ui rem en t of § 2G2 .2(b )(1 ), ho wev er, th e RFA can no t o ve rri de th e o pe rat iv e la ng ua ge of t he Gui de li ne s p ro vi si on . See Ra y , 70 4 F .3d at 1 31 4.

-6

-Sh el ab arg er al so ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ap pl y a 2- le ve l

en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce un de r U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1
, whi ch di rect s co ur ts

to in crea se th e o ffen se lev el by 2 if:

(1 ) th e de fen da nt wi ll fu ll y ob st ru ct ed or im pe de d, or at te m

pt ed to ob st ru ct or im

pe d e , th e ad m in is tra ti on of jus ti ce wit h res pe ct to th e in ve st ig at io n, pr os ecu t i o n , or se nt en ci ng of th e in st an t of fen se of

co nv ic ti on , an d (2 ) th e ob st ru ct iv e co n d u c t rel at ed to (A) th e de fen da nt ’s of

fen se of co nv ic ti on an d an y rel ev an t co n du ct ; or (B) a cl os el y rel at ed off

en se [.]

U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1. To ap pl y th e § 3C 1.1 en ha nc em en t b as ed on a de fen da nt ’s fal se

st at em en ts un de r oa th

, th e di st ric t co ur t m us t de ci de by a pr ep on de ran ce of ev id en ce whe th er th e de fen d a n t co m m it te d pe rjury an d m

us t m ak e in de pe nd en t fin di ng s to

es ta bl is h wil lfu l im

pe di m en t or ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce. Uni te d St at es v. Pet ro vi c, 70 1
F.3 d 84 9, 85 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). “ ‘A wit ne ss te st ifyin g un de r oa th ’ co m m it s pe rjury
whe n he ‘giv es fal se te s ti m on y co nc ern in g a m at eri al m at te r wit h th e wil lfu l in te nt

to pr ov id e fal se te st im on y .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dun ni ga n, 50 7 U.S. 87
, 94 (1 99 3) ).

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err by im po si ng a 2- le ve l en ha nc em en t un de r § 3C 1.1

. The co ur t in de pe nd en tl y co nc lu de d th at a pr ep on de ran ce of ev id en ce su pp or te d it s fin di ng th at Sh el ab arg er te st ifi ed fal se ly an d wil lfu ll y un de r oa th

. The co ur t fo un d
th at Sh el ab arg er te st i f

i e d fal se ly ab ou t do wnl oa di ng ch il d po rn og rap hy, ab ou t th e fu nc ti on al it y of hi s la pt op co m pu te r, an d ab ou t th e ci rcu m st an ces of hi s in te rro ga tion.
Sh el ab arg er’s te st im on y on th es e subj ec ts was in co ns is te nt wit h th e fo ren si c ev id en ce

an d ot he r wit ne ss es ’ te st im on y

. At le as t so m e o f th is fal se te st im on y co nc ern ed 3

A lthou gh th e fo ren si c ev id en ce di d su gg es t th at th e la pt op ’s in te rn et ca pa bil ity 3

m ig ht no t ha ve be en wor ki ng , th e fo re n s i c an d te st im on ia l ev id en ce co nt rad ic te d Sh el ab arg er’s cl ai m

th at th e la pt op was a lm os t co m pl et el y in op erab le

.
-7

-m at te rs su ffi ci en tl y m at eri al to co ns ti tu te pe rjury. In li gh t of th e de fere nc e du e to th e

di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s an d th e su bs ta nt ia l qu an ti ty of ev id en ce co nt rad ic ti ng th e st at em en ts Sh el ab arg er m ad e un de r oa th

, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in ap pl y in g th e 2 -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-8

-