Th e Ho no ra ble Th oma s A. Wise man, Jr., Se nio r Un ite d Stat e s Dist ri c t J ud g e fo r t

he Mid dle * District of Tenne ssee, sitting by desig nation. 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: 10a0669n.06 No. 08-4598 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. CHRI STOPHER MI CHAEL McCORMI CK, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N O R T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Be fore : BOG GS and CL AY, Circuit J udg es; and WI SEMAN, District J udg e. * WI SEM AN , D istri c t Judg e . D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt C hr ist op he r M ic ha e l Mc Cor mic k a pp e a ls the se nte nc e of

imp ri so nme nt i mpo se d u po n h is p le a

of g uil ty to the c ha

rg e of re c e ivi ngc hil d pornog raphy

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) (A). H e cont en d s that his 225-month prison sentenc e is substantively

unrea sonable in lig ht of the lifetime per iod of supervised relea se to follow it. Ap p el l an t submit s that “a le sser sente nce, thr oug h a var iance , would meet all the g oals of [§] 35 5 3 (a ), g iven the prote ctions—and conse quence s—that lifetime supervised r elea se provides.” (A pp e lla nt’ s B r. 7– 8. ) H e a lso arg ues that the dis tr ic t c ourt

vio la te d h is r ig hts un de r t

he Sixth Amendment bec ause it enha nced his sente nce a

bove t h e b as e offe nse leve l based on judg e-f ound fa c ts. F ind ingno me ri t to e ith e r o f t he De fe nd ant’ s a

rgume nts , w e a ff

ir m.No. 08-4598

United States v. Mc Cormick

These en h an cements included a two-le vel enha nceme nt for cr iminal activity involving 1 p re p u b es c e n t m i n o rs , US S G § 2 G2

. 2 (b )( 2 ), P S R ¶ 3 4 ; a f i v e- l ev el en h an ce m en tfo r p o s s es s i n g, distributing and tra ding w ith the expectation of rec eipt of a thingof value , USSG § 2G2.2(b)(3) (B ), PSR ¶ 35 ; a fo ur -l e ve l e nh anc e me nt f or mate ri a l invo lvi ngsad is ti c and /or ma so c his tic c on du c t, USSG § 2 G 2

. 2 ( b ) ( 4 ) , PS R ¶ 3 6 ; a tw o - le v e l e n h an c e me n t f o r u s e o f a c o mp u te r

in th e o f f e n s e, USS G § 2G 2. 2( b) (6 ), PSR ¶ 36 ; and a fi ve -l e ve l e nh ancem ent b e c a us e the numbe r o f i ma g e s, inc lud ingthe c omp utatio n o f v ide os to i ma g e s, tot a le d mo re tha n 6 00 , USS G § 2G 2. 2( b) (7 )( D) , PSR ¶ 37. -2- I. A cr i m i n a l c o mp l a i n tw a s i s s u e d o nM ay 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 , c h a

r g i n g M c C o r

m i c k w i t hk n o w i n g ly possessing imag es of c hild pornog raphy that had bee n t ra n s p o rt ed in interstate c ommerce by any

mean s , in c lu d in g b y c o mp u te r , in v io lati o n o f 1 8 U

. S. C. § 2 2 5 2 A ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A )

. M c Co r mic k waived i n d i ct m en t an d t h e ca s e p ro ce ed ed b y wa y o f an I n fo rm at i o n . He p l ea d edgu i l t y t o t h e s i n gl e c h ar ge in the I nformation on August 4, 2008. After McCormick ente red his guilty plea, a Presentenc e I nvestig ation Report (“ PSR ”) w as prepa red, to whic h neither pa

rty filed objec tions. As set out in the PSR , the base offe nse leve l for

re c e ipt of c hil d p or no g ra ph y is 2 2. U. S. Sen te nc ingGu ide lin e s ( “ USS G” ) § 2G 2. 2( a )( 2) . Sp e c if ic offe nse cha

rac teristics provided for enhanc ements that resulted in a n adjusted off

ense le vel of 40. 1 (P SR ¶ ¶ 3 4– 37 .) Th re e le ve ls we re de du c te d fo r a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty , yie ldi nga tot a l of fe ns e le ve l of 37 . (PSR ¶ 42–43 , 46. ) B e c a us e Mc Cor

mic k ha d no cr imi na l histo ry po int s, he fe ll w ith in

c ri min a l hi sto ry

c a te g or y I . ( PSR ¶

49 .) B y statut e , th e min imum te rm fo r a v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 22 52 A is fi ve y e a

rs ; the ma ximum , tw e nty y e ars . 18 U. S.C. § 22 52 A( a )( 2) (A ) & (b )( 1) . ( PSR ¶ 87.) Althoug h the re commended Sente ncingGuidelines ra ng e for a t o t al o ff

ense le vel of 37 a

ndNo. 08-4598

United States v. Mc Cormick

-3- c ri min a l hi sto ry

c a te g or y Iis 2 10 to 2 62 months , the e ff e c tiv e Gu ide lin e s rang e in M c Cor mic k’ s c a se

wa s 2 10 to 2 40 months a s a re su lt o f t

he statut or

y maximum

. Pursuant to statute, the authorized term of supervised rele ase for any offe nse under § 2252A “is any term of y ear s not less than 5, or life.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k). The policy statement embodied i n US SG § 5D1.2(b) r ecommends that if the offe nse of c onviction is a sex offense, “ the statutory

ma ximumte rm

of su pe rv ise d re le a se ” be imp os e d. Th e pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r who pr e pa

re d th e PSR in this case did not identify

any sentenc ing f

actor s under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that wa rra nted a va rianc e. (PSR ¶ 106.) McCormick appe are d befor e district judg e Jack Z ouhar y for se ntencingon November 3, 2008. The judg e aske d whether either side had any objections to the P SR as prepare d, and counse l fo r b oth par tie s c on fi rm e d th a t th e y

ha d r e vie we d th e PSR and ha d n o f or ma l ob je c tio ns to i t. (Sentenc ing T r. 2:11–20.) Af ter g iving c ounsel for both pa rt i es and the de fenda

nt himself an op po rt un ity to be he ard , Judg e Z ouha ry imp os e d a se nte nc e of 22 5 months of imp ri so nme nt ( wi thi n the Gu ide lin e s r ang e of

21 0 to 24 0 mont

hs ), to b e fo llo we d b y

a lif e tim e pe ri od

of su pe rv ise d r e le a se (also in ac corda

nce w ith the Guidelines), and dir ecte d that McCorm i ck p articipate in treatment pr og ra ms f or su bs tanc e a bu se and fo r s e x off

e nd e rs a t th e dir e c tio n o f t he Bu reau of

Pr iso ns . (Sentenc ing Tr. 15:3–12, 16:7–15; R. 17.) I n fashioning the sentenc e, the judg e noted on the r ecor d that he h a d c o n s id e r e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s in e n s u r in g a s e n te n c e th a t w a s “ s u f f ic ie n t b u t not g reater than nece ssary to comply with the purposes of the statute.” (Sentenc ing T r. 8:13–21.) B asedNo. 08-4598

United States v. Mc Cormick

-4- on his review of

the re levant sente ncing fac tors and the statutory mandates, the judge deter mined that

a var iance from the Guide lines rang e wa s not appropriate. Specifica lly

with respec t to the p eriod of supe rvised re lease , the g overnme nt reque sted imp os iti on

of a lif e tim e te rm of

su pe rv ise d r e le a se , b a se d o n a pr e sumpt ion

that “ the be st w ay

to

ensure that [t he def

endant did not re offe nd was] for him to be continuousl y supervised.” (Sentenc ing Tr. 7:21–8: 3.) J udg e Zouha ry appar ently ag ree d, as he stated, when announcing that the sentenc e would include a life term of supe rvised re lease : “ [T] hat’s to make sure, Mr. McCormick, that y ou alway s know y ou have a

life line there . I f there ’s nobody else in y our life whe n y ou g et out of y our prison to help y ou, probation will be there to help y ou, so Ihope you’ll utili ze them as a lifeline.” (Sentenc ing T r. 15:12–16.) The Judgment wa s filed November 4, 2008 (R. 17), and D efe ndant filed a timely notice of appea l (R. 18). II. Although Mc Cormick did not raise any specific objection to the sentenc e at the time it was imposed, he now a

rgues that (1) the 225-month prison term imposed by the district court wa s substantively

unrea sonable a

nd that a var iance from the Guide lines was wa rr an t ed ; and (2) the eig hteen- l ev el enhanceme nt (from a base of fense level of 22 to a

n adjusted off

ense le vel of 40) violated his Six th Amendment rig ht to a trial by jury . We consider e ach of these a rguments in turn.No. 08-4598

United States v. Mc Cormick

Mc Cor mic k w a s tw e nty -f

our y e ars old

a t th e tim e of

se nte nc ing . In h is b ri e f, he state s th a t, 2 acc ording to the Bur eau of Prisons’ website, he is due to be rele ased on Septe mber 26, 2024 a t the ag e of 41 a

nd that, presuming a life e x pecta ncy of 70 y ear s or more, he will likely be on super

vised re le a se fo r a

t le a st thir ty y e ars . -5-

A. T h i s co u rt revie ws sentenc es for rea sonablene ss, which has both a proce dural and a substantive component. United States v. Thomas , 498 F .3 d 3 36 , 3 39 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) ; Gall v. United States , 5 22 U. S. 38, 49 –5 0 (20 07 ). Mc Cor mic k doe s not cl a im a

ny pr oc e dura l e rr or , h ow e ve r, so

we revie w the sentenc e for substantive rea sonablene ss only , under the highly defe rential a

buse-of

discretion standa

rd. Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51 (2007). Unde r that standar d, a sente nce ma y be conside red substantively

unrea sonable if the district c ourt “sele cts a sente nce a rbitrar ily , bases the sentenc e on impermissible f

actor s, fails to c onsider rele vant sentenc ing fac tors, or g ives an unrea sonable amount of we ight to any

pertinent fa ctor.” United St a t es v. Conatser , 514 F.3d 508, 520 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Mc Cor mic k d oe s n ot a

rgue tha t the se nte nc e is arb itr ary or ba se d on imp e rm iss ibl e fa c tor s, nor does he contend th at J u d ge Zouhary failed to c onsider re levant sente ncingfac tors or g ave a n

unrea sonable amount of weig ht to any particula r fa ctor. Instead, he argues that the 225-month prison term is substantively

unrea sonable in lig ht of the protec tions af fo rd ed by the lifetime term of supervised r elea se that Judge Z ouhary al s o imposed. He c oncede s that he does not have any 2No. 08-4598

United States v. Mc Cormick

McCormick did not object to the substantive rea sonablene ss of his sentence at the time of 3 sentenc ing. H oweve r, unlike a c halleng e to proce dural rea sonablene ss, a party g ener ally does not have to r aise a

n objection to substantive rea sonablene ss before the trial court in orde r to prese rve the argument for a

ppeal. United States v. Houston , 529 F.3d 743, 755 (6th Cir. 2008), cert. de nied , 129 S. Ct . 2764 (2009). -6- a uth or ity to s up po rt

his c on ten ti on

that th is f

a c tor re nd e rs the pr iso n te rm su bs tanti ve ly

unrea sonable. 3 McCormick simply

has not prese nted any

fac ts or argument s ug g esting the district court abused its discre tion in im posing a within-Guidelines sentenc e. To the contra ry , it is cle ar that the district court expressly

and individually

addre ssed the sente ncingfac t o rs s et out in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a ), and

pa rt ic ula rl y no te d th a t Mc Cor

mic k h a d a dmi tte d th a t hi s attr act ion to youngg ir ls, specific ally

g irls seven to eig ht y ear s old, was li ke an a ddiction. Among nume rous other f actor s, the court discussed the fac t that McCormick had ad m i t t ed to s exually abusing his half-sister int e rm itt e ntl y

ov e r t he c ours e of

thirte en y ears , a

nd a lso a dmi tte d to se xua lly a bu sin g a t le a st s ix additional minor victims. Based on these and other fac ts, the court conclude d that a var iance was not appropr iate in this case a nd that a within-Guidelines se ntence of 225 months was suffic ient but not gr eate r than ne cessa

ry to fulfill the purposes of se ntencingset out in § 3553(a). “The fac t that the appellate court mig ht rea sonably have c oncluded that a differ ent sentenc e

was a ppropriat e i s i n s u ff

i cient to justify

reve rsal of the district court.” Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51. Moreove r, sentenc es that fa ll within a properly calc ulated Guidelines rang e enjoy a presumption of

rea sonablene ss on appea l. U n ite d S ta te s v . V o n ner , 5 1 6 F. 3 d 3 82, 389 (6th Cir.) (e n banc) , c e rt. denied , 1 29 S. Ct . 6 8 ( 20 08 ); see also Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007) (“ [A] courtNo. 08-4598

United States v. Mc Cormick

-7- of app e a ls m ay

a pp ly a pr e sumpt ion

of re a so na ble ne ss t o a

dis tr ic t c ourt

se nte nc e tha

t r e fl e c ts a proper application of th e S en t en cing Guidelines.”) . I n the pre sent ca se, par ticularly in light of McCorm i ck ’s admit ted and c ontinuing sexual obsession with very y oung children, it wa s not an

a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o nf

o r t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtt o f

i n d t h a ta 2 2 5

- m o n t hp r i s o nt e r m , t o b e f o l l o w e d b y a lifetime term of supe rvised re lease , was wa rra nted. This court c annot conc lude that the sentenc e wa s substantively

unrea sonable. B. McCormick’s sec ond claim of e rror is likewise meritless. The defenda nt does not argue that the d i s t rict cour

t increa sed his sentenc e beyond the statutory maxi mum based upon judg e-f ound fac ts. He ar g ues instead that the court violated his Six th Amendment rig ht to a trial by jury when it fo un d fa c ts by a pr e po nd e ra nc e of the e vid e nc e that in c re a se d h is s e nte nc e be y on d th e c on du c t to wh ic h h e a dmi tte d, and

re su lte d in

a Gu ide lin e s r ang e sig nif

ic antl y highe r t ha n it oth e rw ise wo uld have be en but for the judge -found f acts. He contends his argument has not bee n fore closed by the Supreme Court, as c onfirmed by J udg e Scalia’ s concur

renc e in Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 37 5 ( 20 07 ), ob ser vi ngthat th e ma jor ity op ini on in t hat c a se did

“ no t r ule out a s- a

pp lie d Si xth Am e ndme nt c ha lle ng e s to se nte nc e s th at wou ld no t ha ve be e n u ph e ld a s r e a so na

ble on the fa c ts encompa ssed by

the jury verdic t or g uilty

plea.” This court reviews a constitutional challeng e to a de fenda nt’s sentenc e de novo wher ever the defe ndant pre serve s the claim for appellate revie w. Where a defe ndant fa ils to m ake a n objection, this court must review the c laim for plain er ror. United States v. Copeland , 3 21 F .3 d 5 82 , 6 01 (6 thNo. 08-4598

United States v. Mc Cormick

-8- C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g Un ite d S tates v . S tra y ho rn , 2 50 F .3 d 4 62 , 4 67 (6 th C ir . 2 00 1) ). Mc Cor mic k d id not raise a

n objection at his sentenc ing he aringto the computation of his total offense le vel base d up on jud g e -f ound fa c ts, so the c le ar- e rr or

sta nd ard a pp lie s. As an ini tial matter, eve n if McCormick’s a rgument had any

leg al merit, he w ould not be entitled to relief b ec ause, by decliningto object to the fa cts set forth in the PSR upon which the various enha

nceme nts were based, he is d ee m ed t o have a dmitted those facts. United States v. Mo or e , 5 8 2 F. 3d 641, 644 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting that a def endant “ is bound by

the fa ctual al l ega t i o n s i nt h e P S R

t o wh i ch h e d i d

n o to b j ec t ”) (c i t i n g United St a t es v. A dkins , 429 F.3d 631, 632–33 (6th Cir. 2005)). Be cause he is bound by those fac ts, his S ix th Amendment rig ht to a trial by jury was not violated. Moreo v er , irrespe ctive of Mc Cormick’s admission of the fa cts in the PSR , this circuit has repe atedly

held that a sentenc ing court doe s not violate a def endant’ s Six th Amendment rig hts when it considers uncha

rg ed or dismissed conduct for sentencing purposes by making finding s based upon a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e bef

ore it, so long as the c ourt understa nds that the Guidelines ar e advisory only , and it does not rely upon judge -found f acts to impose a se ntence above the statutory maxi mum. United St a t es v. Sex ton , 5 12 F .3 d 3 26 , 3 29 –3 0 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 8) ; Un ite d S

tates v . HajHamed, 549 F.3d 1020, 1026 (6th Cir. 2008)

. The crime to which McCormick pleade d g uilty car ried a maximum sentenc e of 240 months, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)( 2), plus a super vised rele ase pe riod of fi ve y e ars to li fe, 18 U. S.C. § 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 83 (k ). Th e jud g e -f ound fa c ts d id n ot i nc re a se McCormick’s sentenc e above the statutory maxi mum, a nd the district court cle arly understood theNo. 08-4598

United States v. Mc Cormick

-9- advisory nature of the Guide lines. Thus, even if Mc Cormick had not e x p re s s l y ad mitted to the conduct that led to the se ntencingenhanc ements, his Six th A mendment rig hts w ould not have bee n

v i o l at edb y

t h e t ri al co u rt ’s re l i an ce u p o nt h o s e f

ac t s at s en t en ci n g. III

. F or the re a so ns art ic ulate d h e re in, we AF F I RM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt.