2005 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 4-26-2005 

# U SA v . Mitm an P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-1845

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_2005

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 2005 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 . Mitm an" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1313. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1313NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 1845 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. M AR K M I T M AN, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY D . C . C r i m . N o. 03- cr - 00618 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e R ober tB . K ugl er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 7, 2005 B efor e: B A R R Y , A M B R O , and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 26, 2005)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge M a rk M itm a n p led g u iltyto tw o c o u n ts o f re c e iv in g a n d p o ss e ss in g c h ild por nogr aphy , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2252A ( a) ( 2) ( A ) and § 2252A ( a) ( 5) ( B ) . D ur i ngT h e D istric t C o u rt a p p lied th e 2 0 0 2 e d iti o n o f th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s m a n u a l. 1 2 his plea col l oq uy , M i t m an ad m i t t ed to cl and est i nelyvideot aping his t w o st epson s, ages 9 a n d 1 1 , w h ile th e yw e re n a k e d in th e b a th ro o m o f th e ir h o m e . M itm a n f

u rth e r a d m itt e d to e n g a g in g in a n e m a il co rre sp o n d e n c e w ith a n u n d e rc o v e r a g e n t, i n w h ich h e a g re e d to e x c h a n g e a c o p yo f

th e v id e o tap e o f

h is s tep so n s f

o r a n o th e r v id e o tap e o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y . M itm a n w a s a rre ste d b e f o re h e w a s a b le to se n d th e v id e o tap e o f h is ste p so n s to th e u n d e rc o v e r a g e n t. Ats e n t e n c i n g , t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ti mp o s e d a n e n h a n c e me n tp u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. §2G 2. 2( b) ( 2) ( B ) . T hi s s ect i on, w hi ch pert ai ns t o “mat er i al i nvol vi ng t he s exual 1 expl oi t at i on of a mi nor , ” pr ovi des fora 5- poi nti ncr eas e i n t he off ens e l evel w her e the offe ns e i nvol ved the “di s t r i but i on fort he r ece i pt , orexpec t at i on of r ece i pt , of a thi ng of val ue, butnotforpecuni arygai n. ” A ts ent enci ng, M i t m an ar gued thathe had no i nt ent i on of ac tual l ys endi ng t he vi deot ape of hi s s t eps ons t o t he under coveragent . I ns t ead, he cont ended thathe had mer el ypr om i s ed t o s end hi s t ape i n or dert o i nduce the under cover agentt o s end hi m chi l d por nogr aphy . M or eover , M i t m an ar gued thatforpurpos es of appl y i ng t he enha ncement , t he t erm “s exual expl oi t at i on of a mi nor ” s houl d be cons t rued a s th a t te rm is d e f

in e d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 6 , w h ic h a rg u a b ly w o u ld e x c lu d e h is c o n d u c t. T he D i s t r i ctC our tr ej ect ed M i t m an’ s ar gum ent s , and appl i ed the 5- poi nt enhanc ement , w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a G ui del i nes r ange of 46- 57 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . T he C ou rti m po sed a sentence of 5 1 m on t hs.3

O n appea l , M i t m an does notchal l enge a nyas pectof hi s convi ct i on, chal l engi ng o n lyth e e n h a n c e m e n t th a t w a s im p o se d a n d a rg u in g th a t h e is e n tit led to re se n ten c in g in l i ghtof U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. __, 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) . H avi ng det erm i ned t hat i ssues w i t h respectt o B oo ker ar e bestdeterm i ned byt he D i stri ctC ou rti n the fi rs t in s ta n c e , w e w ill v a c a te th e s e n te n c e a n d re m a n d f o r r e s e n te n c in g in lig h t o f th a t o p in io n . T he j udgm entof convi ct i on w i l l be af fi r m ed.