FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 16, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 88 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 8- cr-0 02 22 -WK W -CSC -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Plai nt iff - App el le e, ver su s STEPHEN CHARLES NORRELL, a.k .a. Sru nwa y

36 , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st16 , 20 11 ) Befo re WILSON, MARTIN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: St ep he n C ha rle s No rrel l ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on an d 4 2- m on th sen te nc e fo rkn owi ng ly atte m pt in g t o t ran sf

er o bs cen e m atte r to anin di vi du al un de r th e ag e o f 16 , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 47 0. On ap pe al , Norre ll rai se s t hr ee i ss ue s: (1) whe th er t he di st ric t co urt erredas am at te r of law wh enitin st ru ct edth e jury tha t kn owl ed ge un de r § 1 47 0 m ay be est ab li sh edif No rrel l b el ie ve d t ha t the pe rs on to who m he att em pt edto tra ns fer o bs cen e m at te r was un de r 16 y ears ol d; (2) whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y

erre d i n app lying a se ve n- le ve l en ha nc em en t t o No rrel l’s ba se off en se lev el forco nduc t i nt en de d t o p ers ua de , in du ce, en ti ce, co erce , or faci li ta te th e tr av el of, am in orto en ga ge in pro hi bi te d s ex ua l co nduc t; an d (3 ) whe th er No rrel l’s 4 2- m on th sen te nc e, whi ch was wi th in th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge , was p ro cedur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le . I. W e rev ie w de no vo th e le ga l co rrec tn es s o f a jury ins tru ct io n . Uni te d Sta te s v. Pra th er , 20 5 F .3d12 65 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ). “ Gen eral ly, di st ric t co urts ha ve br oa d d is cret io n i n fo rm

ul at in g jury

in st ru ct io ns pro vi de d t ha t t he ch arg e as a who le accu rat el y

refl ect s the law an d t he fact s.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . And“ we wil l n otrev ers e a co nv ic ti on on th e b as is of ajury ch arg e un le ss th e is su es of l aw were p res en te d i na ccu rat el y , or t he ch arg e im pr op erl y gu id edth e jury in s uc h asubs ta nt ia l way as to vi ol at e due pro ces s.” Id . (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . 2Norrel l ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s jury in st ru ct io n c on st ru ct iv el y m od ifi edth e in di ctm en t b y ch an gi ng aness en ti al ele m en t o f th e ch arg edoff en se un de r § 1 47 0. Th is arg um en t i s u np ers ua si ve . Sect io n 1 47 0 p ro vi de s: Who ev er, u s in g th e m ai l or an y faci li ty or m ean s of in te rs ta te or fo rei gn co m m erce , kn owi ng ly tra ns fers ob sc en e m at te r to an ot he r in di vi du al who ha s no t atta in ed th e ag e of 16 y ears , kn owi ng th at su ch othe r in di vi du al ha s no t at ta in ed th e ag e of 16 y ears , or at te m pt s to do so , sh al l be fin ed un de r th is t i t l e, im pr is on ed no t m or e th an 10 y ears , or b oth. 18 U.S.C. § 1 47 0. Th e d is tri ctco urt’s i ns tru ct io n re la ti ng th e el em en ts ne ed edto co nv ic t u nd er § 14 70 tra ck edth e la ng ua ge of t he st atut e. (Doc . 70 at 8 ). Bu t Norrel l’s ch al le ng e rel at es to th e co urt’s ch arg e co nc ern in g “ pr oo f of kn owl ed ge ,” whi chread : Whe n kn owl ed ge of th e ex is te nc e of a pa rti cu la r fact is an

es se nt ia l pa rt of an of

fen se , s u c h k

no wl ed ge may be es ta bl is he d if th e Defe nd

an t be li eved th at th e fa ct exist ed . If y ou fin d t ha t t he Defen da ntdi d n otactua ll y be li ev e th e fact ex is te d, y ou can no t fin d th at t h e D efen da nt ha d th e requi si te kn owl ed ge . (Do c. 70 at 1 5) (em

ph as is ad de d) . He arg ue s t he co urt erro ne ou sl y in st ru ct edth e jury thatpro of

of ade fen da nt ’s bel ie f is su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh hi s kno wled ge . The refo re, the is su e b efo re u s i s wh et he r th e d is tri ctco urt’s co ns tru ct io n o f th e

3te rm

“ kn owi ng ” in § 1 47 0 was erro ne ou s. Im po rta nt ly, Norrel l was ch arg edwit h a tt em ptun de r § 1 47 0, s o we c on si de r th is is su e as itrel at es to anin ch oa te off en se un de r th e st atut e. Oth er ci rcu it s h av e de te rm in edth ata de fen da nt ’s bel ie f th athe was t ran sf erri ng ob sc en e m at eri al to a pe rs on un de r th e ag e o f 16 was s uf fic ie ntto supp ort an att em ptco nv ic ti on un de r § 1 47 0. Se e Uni te d Sta te s v. Ru dz av ic e , 58 6 F .3d31 0, 3 13 –1 4 (5 th Cir . 20 09 ); Uni te d Sta te s v. S

pu rl oc k, 49 5 F .3d10 11 , 10 13 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7) . This reas on in g i s co ns is te ntwit h o urde ci si on in Uni te d Sta te s v. Ro ot , 29 6 F .3d12 22 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ), su pe rs ed ed by st at ut e o n o th er

gr ou nd s a s r eco gn iz ed

in Uni te d Sta te s v. Jer ch ow er , 63 1 F .3d11 81 , 11 86 –8 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 1) . In Roo t , we rev ie weda co nv ic ti on forkn owi ng ly atte m pt in g t o p ers ua de a m in orto en ga ge incri m in al se xu al act iv ity

in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) , andwe co nc lu de d t ha t “ an actua l m in orvi ct im

is no t re qu ire d fo r an att em ptco nv ic ti on ” u nd er t ha t s ta tu te . Id
. at12 23 , 12 27 . W e ex pl ai ne d, “ Ro ot ’s bel ie f th ata m in orwas i nv ol ve d i s su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in anatt em ptco nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) .” Id
. at 12 27 ; se e a ls o Un it ed

St at es v. Bau er , 62 6 F .3d10 04 , 10 07 –0 8 (8 th Cir . 20 10 ) (co ns id eri ng de fen da nt ’s con vi ct io n fo r at te m pt edrece ip t o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2A, an d c on cl ud in g, “ [t]he st ip ul at edfact s d em on strat e th at Bau er b el ie ve d t ha t h e was co m m un ic at in g wi th a fo urte en -y ear- ol d g irl an d 4in te nd edto rece iv e p orno gr ap hi c im ag es of h er. Bau er’s u nd is pu te d b el ie f th athi s

vi ct im was am in orsat is fie s t he ‘ kn owi ng ly’ requi rem en t o f th e st atut e”); Uni te d St at es v. Co té , 50 4 F .3d68 2, 6 87 –8 8 (7 th Cir . 20 07 ) (“ Ina cri m in al att em pt , a de fen da ntwho be li ev es cert ai n re qu is it e fac ts to be tru e h as th e n eces sa ry in te nt fo r a cri m e req ui rin g t he men s r ea of ‘ kn owl ed ge .’ ”). Norrel l was ch arg edwit h a tt em ptun de r § 1 47 0; th eref

or e, th e d is tri ct co urt’s co ns tru ct io n o f th e te rm “ kn owi ng ” as en co m

pa ss in g No rrel l’s “be li ef” was co ns is te ntwith t he st atut ory lan gu ag e an d t he in di ct m en t. Acco rd in gl y , th e co urt d idno t err whe n i t ch arg edth e jury rega rd in g p ro of of No rrel l’s kno wled ge . II. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in g a s t o wh et he r a d efen da nt qu al ifi es fora se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d Sta te s v. Per ez Oli ver os , 47 9 F .3d77 9, 7 83 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Sect io n 2 G3.1 (b )(1 )(E) o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es pro vi de s fo r a s ev en -le ve l en ha nc em en t i f th e o ffen se in vo lv ed“ [d ]ist rib ut io n t o am in orth atwas i nt en de d t o p ers ua de , in du ce, en ti ce, co erce , or fa ci li ta te th e tr av el of, t he m in orto en ga ge in pro hi bi te d s ex ua l co nduc t . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 2G3 .1(b )(1 )(E). The reco rdev id en ce s up po rts a fi nd in g t ha t No rrel l’s co m m un ic at io ns —b ot h t he st at em en ts he m ad e an d t he im ag es he 5tra ns m it te d—were i nt en de d t o e nt ic e “ ka ti el il 92 ” to en ga ge in pro hi bi te d s ex ua l

co nduc t. Fo r ex am

pl e, Norrel l p ro po se d m eet in g “ ka ti el il 92 ,” su gg es te d h ow s he m ig htde cei ve he r m ot he r to ke ep th ei r m eet in g asec ret , andex pl ai ne d wh athe wou lddo to an d wi th “ ka ti el il 92 ” if th ey were t o m eet . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t cl earl y

err i n d et erm in in g t ha t No rrel l qua li fie d fo r th e se ve n- le ve l en ha nc em en t. III. W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Gal l v. Uni te d Sta te s , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 (20 07 ). The p art y ch al le ng in g t he se nt en ce h as th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atitwas u nr eas on ab le . Uni te d Sta te s v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m ). Our re as on ab le ne ss rev ie w in vo lv es a two -s te p p ro ces s: fir st , we eva lu at e th e se nt en ce fo r pr oc edur al erro r; andsec on d, we ev al ua te th e se nt en ce’s s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss . Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 . Inou r pr oc edur al an al y si s, we co ns id er wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y cal cu la te d t he de fen dant ’s Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat edth e Gui de li ne s as ad vi so ry , co ns id eredth e fac to rs li st edin 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a), ch os e a s en te nc e b as edon fact s tha t wer e n otcle arl y erro ne ou s, an d e xp la in edth e se nt en ce ad equa te ly, in cl ud in g a ny dev ia ti on fro m th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Id
. To d et erm in e su bs ta nt iv e

6reas on ab le ne ss , we con si de r whe th er t he di st ric t co urt ac te d wi th in it s d is cret io n i n

de te rm in in g t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s s up po rte d t he ch os en sen te nc e an d t he n ju st ifi ed an y subs tant ia l d ev ia ti on fro m th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Id
. at 5 6. “ ‘T he weig htto be acco rd edan y gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fa ct oris a m at te r co m m it te d t o the so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt,’ and‘ we wil l n otsubs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t i n weig hi ng th e rel ev an t fa ct or s.’” Uni te d Sta te s v. Amed eo , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 32 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta te s v. Will ia ms , 45 6 F .3d13 53 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ) (al te rat io ns om it te d) . Norrel l’s 4 2- m on th sen te nc e is reas on ab le . The s en te nc e is pro cedur al ly reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt ap pr op ria te ly con si de redth e Gui de li ne s an d th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, an d t ho ro ug hl y ex pl ai ne d the reas on s fo r im po si ng th e se nt en ce i t d id . Andth e se nt en ce was subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ct co urt ac te d wi th in it s d is cret io n i n app lying th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s t o t hi s ca se . AFFIRMED.

7