2010 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 4-6-2010 

# U SA v . James M o ore 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 . 09-3060

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . J ame s M oor e " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1559. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1559NOT 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. 09- 3060 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J AM ES LE W I S M OO RE,

A ppel l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 4- 07- cr - 00408- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jam es F . M cC lure Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 24, 2010 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O , and FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: A pr i l 6, 2010) OP I NI ON A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge Ja m e s L . M o o re p led g u iltyto re c e iv in g a n d d istrib u tin g c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y , in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 2 5 2 (a )(2 ) a n d (b )(1 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt se n ten c e d M o o re to 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . M oor e cha l l enges hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng thati tw as2

s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s tr i ctC our taff or ded undue de fer ence t o the c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h yS e n t e n c i n g Gu i d e l i n e s . W e d i s a g r e e a n d th e r e f o r e a f f i r m. I. A chi l d pornogr aphyi nves t i gat i on conduct ed byA us tr al i an author i t i es l ed t o the FB I ’ s di s coveryof an i ndi vi dual i n Fl or i da us i ng the s cr een na m e “ge ki bl ue, ” w ho had b e e n se n d in g im a g e s o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yv ia th e in ter n e t to a n in d iv id u a l in W i l l i amspor t , Penns y l vani a, w ho w as us i ng the s cr een na m e “out l aw j es s j ames. ” The c o m p u ter o f

th e u se r w ith th e sc re e n n a m e “ o u tlaw jes sja m e s” w a s tra c e d v ia admi ni s tr at i ve s ubpoena t o an addr es s i n W i l l i amspor t , and w hen FB I agent s w entt o the addr es s theyfound M oor e ther e. H e vol unt ar i l ys poke w i th the age nt s , and dur i ng the in ter v iew a d m itt e d th a t h e h a d e n g a g e d in o n lin e c h a ts w ith , an d re c e iv e d c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yf

ro m , “ g e k ib lu e .” M oor e cons ent ed t o a s ear ch of hi s comput er , and an a nal y s i s of the comput er r evea l ed 321 i m ages of chi l d pornogr aphy , 235 of w hi ch had be en r ece i ved fr om “geki bl ue. ” These i m ages w er e vi r tual l yal l of m i nor s underthe age of tw el ve enga gi ng i n s exual l yexpl i ci tconduct . T he i m ages al s o i ncl uded portr ay al s of s adi s t i c conduc t w her ebybabi es w er e phy s i cal l yr es tr ai ned. T he comput eranal y s i s r evea l ed al s o that M o o r e h a d s e n tp h o t o s t o “ g e k i b l u e , ” s e v e r a l o f w h i c h c o n t a i n e d c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h y. A g ra n d ju ryre tu rn e d a th re e -c o u n t in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g M o o re w ith re c e ip t, di s tr i but i on, and pos s es s i on of chi l d pornogr aphy , and M oor e pl ed gui l tyt o the r ece i pt and di s tr i but i on count s . M oor e’ s r ange unde rthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w as 135 t o 168T he r ece i ptand di s tr i but i on count s eac h carr i ed a mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence 1 of fi ve y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent , butfol l ow i ng ar gum entconce rni ng w hetherthe fi ve- y ear t erm s w oul d run cons ecut i vel yorconcurr ent l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thati thad the a u tho ri tyto ru n the m an d atorym inim u m s “c o n cu rren t w ith ea ch o ther,” an d there fo re the ef fect i ve m and at orym i nim um i n thi s case w as fi ve y ears . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is c a s e p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . 2 W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er M o o re’s ch all en g e to h is sen tenc e u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a), as w el l as under28 U . S. C . § 1291. 3 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , buthi s couns el ar gued forthe mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence of fiv e y ea rs, co n tend ing that M o o re h ad n ev er e n g ag ed in an yv iolen t or p red atory

1 b eh av ior an d that the s en tenc ing en h an ce m en ts i n the c h il d p o rno g rap h yG u idelines w ere notbas ed on s ci ent i fi c orempi r i cal dat a. T he D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed and r ej ect ed M oor e’ s ar gum ent s , cons i der ed the 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) s ent enci ng fac t or s , and s ent ence d M oor e t o 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . M oor e now appea l s thats ent ence . 2 II. T h e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s a re n o w a d v is o ry o n ly. U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220, 246 ( 2005) . I n U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 2 3 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , we p ro v id e d se n ten c in g ju d g e s w ith a th re e -ste p p ro c e ss f o r d e ter m in in g th e a p p ro p ria te se n ten c e to im p o se o n a d e f e n d a n t: ( 1) C our t s m us tcont i nue t o cal cul at e a de fenda nt ’ s G ui del i nes s ent ence pr eci s el yas theyw oul d have be for e B ooker . ( 2) I n doi ng s o, theym us tform al l yrul e on the mot i ons of both part i es and s t at e on the r ecor d w hethertheyar e gr ant i ng a depa r tur e and how that departur e af

fec t s the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on, and t ake i nt o acc ountour C i r cui t ’ s pr e- B ookercas e l aw , w hi ch cont i nues t o have a dvi s oryfor ce.4

( 3) Fi nal l y , theyar e r equi r ed t o exer ci s e thei rdi s cr et i on bycons i der i ng the rel evan t[18 U . S . C . ] § 355 3(a) fact ors i n set t i ng the sentence t heyi m po se r egar dl es s w hetheri tvar i es fr om the s ent ence cal cul at ed underthe G uidel i nes. G unt er , 462 F. 3d at247. A d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s s e n te n c in g d e c is io n is re v ie w e d f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n , U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (e n b a n c ), an d in d e e d , “a p p e llate r evi ew of s ent enci ng deci s i ons i s l i m i t ed t o det erm i ni ng w hethertheyar e ‘ r eas onabl e. ’ ” G a ll v. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 38, 46 ( 2007) . “A s an appe l l at e court , ourr ol e i s tw ofol d. ” U nited S tates v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F . 3 d 2 0 7 , 2 1 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). F ir st, w e m u st “en su re th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o m m itt e d n o sig n if ica n t p ro c e d u ra l er ro r, su c h a s f a ili n g to cal cul at e ( ori m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) the G ui del i nes r ange, tr eat i ng the G ui del i nes as m andat ory , [or ] fai l i ng t o cons i derthe § 3553 fa ct or s . ” G a ll , 5 5 2 U. S . a t5 1 . S e c o n d , we “cons i derthe s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence i m pos ed . . . . ” I d. “F o r a sen tenc e to b e su b stan ti v elyrea so n ab le, a d istri ct co u rtm u st ap p lythe § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors r eas onabl yt o the ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 498 F. 3d 185, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . I n thi s anal y s i s , “[a ] s l ong as a s ent ence fal l s w i thi n the br oad r ange of p o s s i b l e s e n t e n c e s th a tc a n b e c o n s i d e r e d r e a s o n a b l e i n l i g h to f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c t o r s , we m us taff i r m . ” W ise , 5 1 5 F .3 d a t 2 1 8 . III . M oor e does notcont end thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed pr ocedur al err or , nordo w e conc l ude thati ts o err ed. T he C our tcorr ect l ycal cul at ed M oor e’ s G ui del i nes r ange,T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e se rio u sn e ss o f th e o f f e n se a n d th e n e e d to 3 p ro m o te r e sp e c t f

o r th e law , p ro v id e ju st p u n ish m e n t f o r th e o f f e n se , af f o rd a d e q u a te det err ence t o cr i m i nal conduct , and pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es al l i ndi cat ed thata “s i gni fi cant [l y ] s er i ous ” s ent ence w as appr opr i at e, beca us e manyof the i m ages w er e of ve ryy oung chi l dr en and s ever al of them show ed s adi s t i c and mas ochi s t i c conduc t i nvol vi ng phy s i cal r es tr ai nt s bei ng us ed on the chi l dr en. O n the otherhand, the D i s tr i ct C our tconcl uded thatM oor e’ s per s onal hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs couns el ed t ow ar d a lesser se n tenc e, give n that the c ri m inal co n d u ct oc cu rred o v er a sh o rtp eriod o f ti m e, th ere w as no evi dence thatM oor e had e verexhi bi t ed vi ol entorpr edat orybehavi or , and he ha d a v e rylim ited e a rn in g c a p a c ityb e c a u se h e w a s s o lelyd e p e n d e n t o n S o c ial S e c u rity dis abil i tyi nco m e for 20 y ears . 5 m a d e c lea r th a t th e G u id e lin e s w e re a d v iso ry , co n sid e re d a n d re jec ted M o o re ’s a rg u m e n ts fora l es s ers ent ence , cons i der ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s , and i m pos ed a s ent ence 15 3
m onths bel ow the l ow end of the G ui del i nes r ange. I ns t ead, M oor e’ s cont ent i on i s that the s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e bec aus e, i n i m pos i ng the s ent ence , the Di s tr i c tCo u r ta f

f o r d e d u n d u e d e f

e r e n c e t o th e c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h yGu i d e l i n e s , U. S . S . G. § 2G 2. 2. M oor e ar gues thatbeca us e thes e G ui del i nes w er e form ul at ed on the bas i s of statu toryd ir ec ti v es, an d n o t em p ir ical da ta an d n ati o n al ex p erien ce , the D istri ct C o u rt shou l d h ave af

forded them no defe rence, thu s abusi ng i t s di scr et i on byusi ng them as a s t art i ng poi ntforM oor e’ s s ent ence . W hi l e w e have s t at ed that“s ent enci ng court s m aydi s agr ee w i th the G ui del i nes bas ed on pol i cy , ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Thi el em ann , 575 F. 3d 265, 272 n. 12 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t i ng K i m br ough v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 8 5 , 1 0 1 (2 0 0 7 ); Spears v. U ni t ed Stat es , 129 S . C t. 84 0 , 8 4 3 (2 0 0 9 )), n o th in g in o u r p re c e d e n t r equi r es di s tr i ctcourt s t o aff or d l es s er d e f e re n c e to G u id e lin e s th a t a re n o t b a s e d o n s c ie n tif ic o r e m p ir ic a l d a ta . K i m br ough hel d onl ythatw hen a G ui del i ne i s bas ed on s t atut orydi r ect i ves , as oppos ed t o “empi r i cal6

d a ta a n d n a tio n a l ex p e rie n c e ,” a c o u rt m ay choos e to a f f o rd th a t G u id e lin e le s s d e f e re n c e . 5 5 2 U .S . at 1 0 9 . It d id n o t h o ld th a t a s e n ten c in g c o u rt m ustvaryfr om the G ui del i nes un der such cir cum st ances. M oor e r el i es heavi l yon U ni t ed Stat es v. G r ober , 59 5 F . S up p. 2d 38 2 (D . N . J. 2008) , i n w hi ch the C our tconcl uded, bas ed on pol i cycons i der at i ons , that“the pr es ent g u id e lin e , § 2 G 2 .2 , m u st b e g iv e n les s d e f e re n c e th a n th e g u id e lin e s tra d iti o n a lly demand. ” I

d. at412. T he G r oberC o u rt w a s f re e to e x e rc is e its d is c re tio n in th a t w a y . H ow ever , ther e i s no author i tyforthe pr opos i t i on thata di s tr i ctcourt ’ s r el i ance on a G ui del i ne thati s bas ed on s t atut orydi r ect i ves t o fas hi on a s ent ence m akes thats ent ence s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our texpl i ci t l ycons i der ed G r ober , e x p re ss e d d isa g re e m e n t w ith its re a so n in g , d istin g u ish e d it o n its f a c ts (n o tin g th a t in G r oberthe G ui del i nes r ange i ncl uded the s t atut orym axi m um , w hi ch l i kel ycaus ed the C o u rtto sc ruti n ize the ch il d p o rno g rap h yG u idelines m o re c lose ly ), an d rejected M o o re’s ar gum ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our ther e w as fr ee t o exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on i n thi s w ay , j us tas the G r oberC our tw as fr ee t o exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on i n the w ayi tdi d. I n s hor t , w her e a s ent ence i s otherw i s e r eas onabl e, “no j us t i fi cat i on exi s t s for r ever s i ng the D i s tr i ctC our tbeca us e of i t s r el i ance on a curr ent l yval i d G ui del i ne. ” Thi el em ann , 5 7 5 F . 3 d at 27 2 n . 1 2 . N o thing in this reco rd c o n v ince s u s tha t M o o re’s s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e, es peci al l yas i tw as m or e than a y earbel ow t he lo w e n d o f

h is G u id e lin e s ra n g e .7 * * * * * I n thi s cont ext , w e hol d t hatM oor e’ s s ent ence of 120 m onths w as r eas onabl e, and thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n i m pos i ng thi s bel ow - G ui del i nes s e n t e n c e . Th u s , we a f

f i r m.