N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. LEX B ENNETT GOODW IN,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-30193

D.C . No. 4:17-c r-00296-DC N-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ida

ho David C . Ny e , C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 9, 2021 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : GR

AB E R and C H R ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R . C OLLINS, ** Distric t Judge . Le x Goodwin a

ppe a ls his jury

c onvic tion a

nd 100-y e ar se nte n c e for se xua l e xploita t ion of a m inor, in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2251(a ) a nd (e ); atte m

pte d se xua l e xploita

tion of a m inor, in viola

tion of § 2251(a

) and (e ); tra

nsporta t ion of 

# FIL ED JAN 13 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The Honora

ble R ane r C . C ollins, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.c hild pornogra phy , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(a)(1); and posse s sion of c hild pornogra

phy , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(a)(5)(B ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t s, we do not re c ite the m he re . 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

a dm itting photogra

phs, pursua nt to R ule 404(b), of Goodwin’ s pe nis with Ja ne Doe II’ s unde rwe ar. W e re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s e vide ntia ry rulings for a

buse of disc re tion. Unite d State s v . Thornhill , 940 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th C i r. 2019). On a ppe a l , Goodwin’ s sole c ha lle nge to the a dm ission of the se photogra phs is tha t the distric t c ourt did not a ddre s s his R

ule 403 obje c t ion. Tha

t a rgum e nt is una

va iling be c a

use the distric t c ourt’ s pre tria l orde r la id out theR ule 404(b) a

nd R ule 403 sta

nda rds, de te rm ine d that the unde rwe ar photogra

phs we re re le va

nt in tha t the y “ de pic t be havior tha

t is c onsiste n t with a

n inte re st in c hildre n a

nd se x,” and spe c ific a lly

quote d a nd re je c te d Goodwin’ s R

u le 403 a rgum e nt. Thus, the

distric t c ourt a d e quate ly a ddre s se d Goodwin’ s R

ule 403 obje c tion. 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

a dm itting, pursua

nt to R ule 414 a nd R ule 404(b), e vide nc e of Goodwin’ s 2009 c onve rsations with T.L. (the “ 2009 C onve rsat ions” ), an a dult wom an whom he m e t online . Goodwin argue s tha

t the c onve rsat ions involve d T.L.’ s se xua l fa n ta sie s a nd should ha

ve 2be e n e x c l ude d pursua nt to R ule 403 be c a

use the y we re highly

infla m m at ory and unfa irly p re

judic ia l. Le May la i d out thefa c tors tha t c ourts m ust c onside r in de te rm ining whe the r R ule 414 e vide nc e should bee xc lude d pursua nt to R ule 403: (1) thesim ila

rity of the p rior a c ts to thea c ts c ha rge d; (2) the c lose n e s s in tim e of the prior a c ts to the a c ts c ha rge d; (3) the fre que nc y

of the prior a c ts; (4) thepre se nc e or la c k of inte rve ning c irc um sta

nc e s; a nd (5) the ne c e ssity

of the e vide nc e be y ond the te stim ony a lre a dy offe re d at tria l. Unite d State

s v . Le May , 260 F.3d 1018, 1027–28 (9th C ir. 2001) (quota tion m arks om itte d). M ost of the Le

May fa c tors we i gh in fa

vor of the gove rnm e nt. As to

“ sim i la rity ,” the 2009 C onve rsations a nd the c h arge s in this c a se both involve se xua l a buse of y oung c hildre n who a re re late d to Goodwin or his a dult c om pa nions. R ule 414(d)(2)’ s de finition of “ c hild m ole sta tion” inc lude s solic ita tion of c hild pornogra

phy , 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(a)(3)(B ), and the 2009 C onve rsations inc lude num e rous insta nc e s of Goodwin solic iting c hild pornogra phy . The “ c lose ne ss in tim e ” fa c t or is ne utra l be c a use , a s Goodwin c onc e de s, e ve n though the c h a

rge d c onduc t oc c urre d

a pproxim ate ly

e ight y e ars a fte r the 2009

3C onve rsations, Goodwin wa s inc arc e ra te d for five of the e ight y e ars. Se e , e .g. , Le May , 260 F.3d at 1029 (11 y e ars not too re m ote ). The “ fre que nc y ” fa c tor we ighs in fa v or of the gove rnm e nt be c a use the 2009 C onve rsations we re not a n isola te d inc ide nt; the re we re num e rous c onve rsations that oc c urre d ove r the c ourse of a pproxim ate ly

one m onth. During the c onve rsations, Goodwin re pe ate dly a ske d T.L. to he lp him

proc ure c hild pornogra phy . The “ i nte rve ning c irc um sta nc e s” fa c t or is ne utra l be c a u se the re we re no re le va nt, inte rve n i ng e ve nts be t we e n the 2009 C onve rsations a nd the c ha

rge d c onduc t (Goodwin wa s inc arc e ra te d until 2014 a nd re offe nde d in 2017). The distric t c ourt re a sone d tha t the “ ne c e ssity ” fa c t or we ighs in fa vor of the gove rnm e nt be c a

use , a s the c ourt c orre c tly antic ipate d , Goodwin a

tte m pte d to dista nc e him se lf from

the re c ove re d

c h ild pornogra

phy , a nd the 2009 C onve rsations we re probative of Goodwin’ s “ m otive , inte nt, knowle dge , ide ntity , and a bse n c e of m ista

ke .” Se e , e .g., Thornhill , 940 F.3d a t 1119 (tria l c ourt did not a buse i ts disc re tion by

a dm i tting de fe nda

nt’ s prior c onvic tion for se xua lly a busing his 11-y e ar-old da

ughte r). Goodwin is c orre c t tha

t t he 2009 C onve rsations we re highly pre judic ia l, a nd the y m ay not ha v e be e n ne c e ssa

ry in light of the gove rnm e nt’ s othe r strong 4e vide nc e . B ut e v e n if the 2009 c onve rsations we re e rrone ously a d m itte d, the distric t c o urt’ s e rror wa s ha rm le ss be c a

use the gove rnm e nt offe re d ove rwhe lm ing e vide nc e tha

t Goodwin produc e d a

nd posse sse d c hild pornogra phy . Se e Unite d State s v . Arambula-Ruiz , 987 F.2d 599, 605 (9th C ir. 1993). 1 3. The e vide nc e wa s suffic ie nt to support Goodwin’ s c onvic t ion for transporta tion of c hild pornogra

phy . Whe re (a s he re ) a de fe nda nt did not se e k a judgm e nt of a c quitta l ba s e d on insuffic ie n c y of the e vide nc e at tria l, we re vie w the jury ’ s ve rdic t for pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Frank

lin , 321 F.3d 1231, 1239 (9th C ir. 2003).

1 During ora l a

rgum e nt be fore this pa

ne l, de fe nse c ounse l sugge ste d that the pre judic i a l pa

rts of the 2009 C onve rsat ions should ha ve be e n re da c t e d. This a rgum e nt is we ll ta

ke n. W e are not pe rsua de d by the gove rnm e nt’ s bla

nke t a sse rtion tha

t a ll of the 2009 C onve rsations c onstitute solic i tation of c h ild pornogra phy and we re thus a d

m issiblepursua

nt to § 2252A(a

)(3)(B ). For e xam ple , the gove rnm e nt fa ils to a rgue how Goodwin’ s sta

te m e nt to T.L. tha

t he wante d to livewith he r to ra pe he r c hildre n, ha

ve c h ildre n with he r c hildre n, a nd ra pe he r grandc hildre n

c o nstitute s solic ita

tion of c hild pornogra

phy . The re is no que stion tha

t this te stim ony

wa s pre judic ia l, a nd it is doubtful tha

t it wa s ne c e ssa

ry for the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se . B ut Goodwin did not a rgue be fore the distric t c ourt tha t the 2 009 C onve rsations should ha ve be e n re da c t e d or tha

t the 2009 C onve rsations inc l ude d c onduc t tha

t doe s not fa ll within R

u le 414’ s de finition of “ c h ild m ole sta tion.” S e e Unite d State

s v . Bank s , 514 F.3d 959, 976 (9th C ir. 2008). Eve n if the distric t

c o urt e rre d in a dm itting pa rts of the2009 C onve rsat ions, Goodwin c annot e sta

blish tha t the distric t c o urt pla inly e rre d be c a

use he c annot show tha

t “ the re sult of theproc e e ding would ha ve be e n diffe re n t” give n the othe r strong e vide nc e prope rly

a dm i tte d at tria l. Se e Unite d State s v . Alghazouli , 517 F.3d 1179, 1190 (9th C ir. 2008) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). 5The gove rnm e n t offe re d e vide nc e tha t Goodwin use d the Inte rne t to uploa d c hild pornogra

phy to his Google

a c c ounts a

nd to sha re c hild pornogra

phy be twe e n his Googlea c c ounts. Goodwin c ite s no a uthority holding tha

t uploa ding c hild pornogra phy and sha ring suc h c onte nt be twe e n one ’ s own a c c ounts is insuffic ie nt to c o nstituteknowing tra

nsporta tion for purpose s of § 2252A(a)(1). He se pa ra te l y argue s tha

t the c hild pornogra

phy im a g e s we re tra

nsfe rre d through the a

utom atic

“ sy nc ing of two de vic e s use d by him .” B ut the gove rnm e nt introduc e d te stim ony e xpla ining tha

t se tting up the

sha ring func tion re quire d a

purpose ful a c t ion by

the use r. Goodwin c annot sa tisfy the pla in e rror sta

nda rd. Se e Unite d State

s v . Ghane m , 993 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th C ir. 2021) (An e rror “ c annot be pla in if the re is no c ontrolling a

uthority on point . . . .”

(c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)). 4. La st, the distric t c ourt’ s se nte nc e wa s not substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble . In re v ie wing a se nte nc e for re a sona ble ne ss, we a s k whe t

he r the tria l c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion. Unite d State s v . Apodac a , 641 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th C ir. 2011).

“ W e c onduc t a

two-ste p a

na ly sis whe n re vie wing the re a sona ble n e ss of a

se nte nc e :

‘ w e first c onside r whe t

he r the distric t c ourt c om

m itte d signific ant proc e dura l e rror, the n we c onside r the substa

ntive re a sona

ble ne ss of the se nte nc e .’ ” Id. at 1080–81 (c ita tion omitte d). A se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona b le if it is “ suffic ie nt, but 6not gre ate r tha n ne c e ssa ry ” unde r the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s and the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) fa c tors. Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 994–95 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba

nc ). “ The fa c t tha

t the a ppe lla te c ourt m ight re a s ona

bly hav e c onc lude d tha

t a diffe re nt se nte nc e wa s a

ppropria t e is insuffic ie nt to justify re ve rsa l of the distric t c ourt.” Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The distric t c ourt c o nside re d e a c h of the § 3553 fa c tors. The uppe r e nd of the g uide line s ra

nge wa s 320 y e ars, but thec ourt im pose d a 100-y e ar se nte nc e . Se e C arty , 520 F.3d at 995. Thedistric t c ourt’ s re fusa l to de viate furthe r from the a dvisory guide line s ra

nge wa s not a

n a buse of disc re tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Vasque z-C ruz , 692 F.3d 1001, 1008 (9th C ir. 2012). Goodwin a

rgue s tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s pre -tria l filing of the se c ond supe rse ding indic tm e nt a

nd of a notic e of e nha

nc e d pe na ltie s wa s im

prope r be c a use the gove rnm e nt “ wa s fully aware of a ll the pote ntia l c h arge s” a ga inst him ;

“ no ne wfa c ts we re unc ove re d during thepe nde nc y of the c a se ” ; the gove rnm e nt’ s c ha rging de c isions inc re a se d the m inim

um se nte nc e of 35 y e ars a

nd the m ax im

um to 320 y e ars; a

nd he “ wa s be ing punishe d for the e xe rc ise of his right to tria l.” B ut a s Goodwin re c o gniz e s, “ [t] he gove rnm e nt c ha rge d [him ] for c onduc t tha t provide d a

m a xim um se nte nc e of 100 y e ars” be fore filing thesupe rse ding indic tm e nt a

nd a dding a dditiona l c h arge s. His 100-y e a r se nte nc e , the re fore , would 7have be e n

within the

initia l guide line s ra

n ge e ve n if the gove rnm e nt ha d not file d the s upe rse ding indic t

m e nt. The gove rnm e n t’ s c h arging de c isions a re not a fa c tor that distric t c o urts m

ust c onside r pursua

nt to § 3553(a

). Se e also United

State s v . Allsup , 573 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th C ir. 1978) (“ In e le c ting not to bring [som e ] c ha rge s initia lly

and utiliz ing the m

a s a late nt ba rga ining tool, the

Gove rnm e nt e xe rc ise d pe rm issibleprose c utoria l disc re tion.” ). AFFIRM E D.

8