## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 33 39

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

*
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

. Aaro n S to ck

, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]
Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 17 , 20 11
Fi le d: Nov em

be r 10 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re MUR PHY, BYE, and SMITH, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

PER CURI AM.

Aaro n St oc k pl ed gu il ty to two co un ts of po ss es si ng ch il d po rn og rap hy. Afte r

hi s gu il ty pl ea was acce pt ed bu t be fo re se nt en ci ng , he fil ed a m ot io n to m erg e th e two

co un ts

. He arg ue d th at th e se pa rat e ch arg es wou ld pu ni sh h i m twi ce fo r th e sa m e

co nd uc t be cau se th ey were bo th ba se d on hi s po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy at th esa m e ti m e an d pl ace. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s m ot io n an d se nt en ced hi m to 13 5 1

m on th s of im

pr is on m en t. St oc k ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e co un ts of co nv ic ti on sh ou ld

ha ve be en m erg ed . W e aff irm.

St oc k ha d do wnl oa de d po rn og rap hi c im ag es of ch il dr e n us in g a la pt op

co m pu te r, pe er to pe er so ftwa re, a n d t h e i nt ern et

. He was ch arg ed in a fo ur co un t

in di ct m en t with on e co un t of recei pt of ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 22 52 A(a)(2 )(A), 22 5 2 A(b )(1 ), an d th ree co un ts of po ss es si on of ch il d

po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n o f 1 8 U

. S

. C. §§ 22 52 A(a)(5 )(B)

, 22 52 A(b )(2 ). He pl ed

gu il ty un de r a pl ea ag reem en t to two co un ts of po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy. One

was ba se d on hi s po ss es si on of im ag es st or ed on a la pt op , an d th e ot he r was ba se d on

hi s po ss es si on of im ag es on an ex te rn al ha rd dr iv e. In ex ch an ge fo r hi s gu il ty pl eas , th e g ov ern m en t ag reed to di sm is s t he ot he r two co un ts

.

Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed St oc k's gu il ty pl eas , he fil ed a m ot io n to m erg e

th e co un ts to whi ch he ha d pl ed

. He arg ue d th at if jud gm en t were en t e r e d o n b o th

co un ts

, he wou ld be pu ni sh ed twi ce fo r th e sa m e cri m in al co nd uc t in vi ol at io n of th e
do ub le jeop ard y cl au se be cau se bo th co un ts ch arg ed po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy

at th e sa m e ti m e an d pl ace. The di st ric t co ur t ru le d t ha t St oc k h ad waiv ed hi s ri gh t

to ch al le ng e th e in di ct men t b e c a u s e he ha d pl ed gu il ty to th e two ch arg es an d hi s

gu il ty pl eas ha d be en acce pt ed by th e co ur t. It co nc lu de d th at St oc k's ad m it te d

co nd uc t of pos se ss in g c hi ld po rn og rap hy on two se pa rat e de vi ces co ul d be char ge d

as se pa rat e cri m es an d se nt en ced hi m to 13 5 m on th s. St oc k ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e
ch arg es to whi ch he pl ed sh ou ld ha ve be en reg ard ed as a si ng le off en se

.

W e co nc lu de th at by pl ead in g gu il ty, St oc k waiv ed hi s m erg er arg um en t. Our

cas es in di cat e th at "[a ] va li d gu il ty pl ea is an ad m is si on of gu il t th at waiv es al l no nThe Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.

-2

-juri sd ic ti on al de fect s an d de fen se s." Uni te d St at es v. Lim le y , 51 0 F.3 d 82 5, 82 7 (8 th

Ci r. 20 07 ). St oc k nev ert he le ss co nt en ds th at he di d n ot waiv e h is m erg er argu m en t

be cau se hi s ch al le ng e is ba se d o n an al le ge d do ub le jeop ard y vi ol at io n. Men na v.

N e w Y o rk

, 42 3 U.S. 61

, 62 (1 97 5) (p er cu ria m ). W e ha ve pr ev io us ly no te d th e

li m it ed reac h o f th e cas e o n whi ch St oc k reli es be cau se as l at er ex pl ai ne d, " a g ui lt y pl ea do es fo recl os e a do ub le jeop ard y at ta ck on a co nv ic ti on un le ss , as in Men na , 'on

th e face of t h e r e co rd th e co ur t ha d no po wer to en te r th e co nv ic ti on or im po se th e

se nt en ce.'" Uni te d S ta te s v . Vaug ha n, 1 3 F .3d 11 86 , 11 88 (8t h Ci r. 19 94 ) (q uo ti ng
Uni te d St at es v. Bro ce, 48 8 U.S. 56 3, 56 9 (1 98 9) ). In Bro ce, th e Su pr e m e Co ur t

m ad e cl ear th at by p le ad in g gu il ty "t o two c o u n t s wit h faci al al le ga ti on s of di st in ct

of fen se s" a de fen da nt co nc ed es "t ha t he ha s co m m it te d two se pa rat e cri m es ," an d in

th at si tu at io n th ere was no do ub le jeop ard y vi ol at io n on th e face of th e reco rd

. Bro ce,

48 8 U.S. at 57 0, 5 76

.

By p le ad in g gu il ty to two co un ts of po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy, St oc k

ad m it te d th at he ha d co m m it te d two s e p a r a t e cri m es

. He ha s th eref or e waiv ed hi s
do ub le jeop ard y

ch al le ng e. W e are for ecl os ed fro m rev ie win g Sto ck 's c la im s s in ce
"wai ve d cl ai m s are un rev ie wab le on ap pe al ." Uni te d St at es v. Bo ok er, 57 6 F.3 d 50 6,

51 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). We n e e d no t co nd uc t an y fu rth er rev ie w. Acco rd in gl y , we

affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-