# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 17 27

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ant ho ny O. Terry

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 6, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Ju ly 5, 20 17 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , SMITH an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

The Hon or ab le W il li am Ja y Ri le y st ep pe d do wn as Ch ie f Ju dg e of th e Uni te d 1 St at es Co ur t of App eal s fo r th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it at th e cl os e of bu si ne ss on Mar ch 10 , 20 17 . He has be en su ccee de d b y th e Hon or ab le Lave ns ki R. Sm it h.A n t h o ny Terry pl ead ed gu il ty to vi ol at in g 18 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) twi c e b y

at te m pt in g to rece iv e ch il d po rn og rap hy ov er th e In te rn et

. Th e d i st ric t co ur t, 2

ap pl y in g a di s tri bu ti on en ha nc em en t whe n cal cu la ti ng Terry’ s Gui de li ne s ran ge ,
se nt en ced Terry to 18 0- m on th co nc ur ren t te rm s of im pr is on m en t on each co un t. The

co ur t al so im

po se d m an y lo ng -te rm sp eci al su p e rv is ed -rel eas e co nd it io ns

. The se

co nd it io ns req ui re Terry (1 ) no t to co nt act an y on e un de r 18 wit ho ut pr io r pr ob at io n ap pr ov al ; (2 ) no t t o ha ve In te rn et -co nn ect ed el ect ro ni cs wit ho ut pr io r pr ob at io n ap pr ov al ; (3 ) no t to ha ve an acco un t on a so ci al -n et wor ki ng si te th at al lo ws acce ss to
pe op le un de r 18 or th at al lo ws se xu al ly ex pl ic it m at eri al s; an d (4 ) to le t th ird pa rti es di sc lo se hi s cri m in al hi st or y an d co m pu te r res tri ct io ns to an y wou ld -b e em pl oyers. Terry ap pe al s th e di st rib ut io n en ha nc em en t an d th es e su pe rv is ed -rel eas e co nd it io ns , whi ch are s pe ci al co nd it io ns 4, 1 0, 1 2, an d 1 3 o f hi s ju dg m en t.

Terry waiv ed hi s rig ht to ap pe al in hi s pl ea ag reem en t, s u bjec t to cert ai n

ex cep ti on s th at do no t ap pl y he re. Bu t Terry co nt en ds th at th e waiv er is un en fo rcea bl e be cau se ap pl y in g th es e su pe rv is ed rel eas e co nd it io ns an d di st rib ut io n enh an cem en t

wou ld be a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce. Se e Uni te d St at es v. And is , 33 3 F.3 d 88 6, 89 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ).

In And is , we he ld th at an ap pe al of su pe rv is ed -rel eas e co nd i ti on s al le ge dl y im po se d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (d ) (th e st at ut e go ve rn in g su pe rv is ed -rel eas e

co nd it io ns ) di d no t in vo lv e a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce in th e fo rm of an il le ga l se nt en ce. Id

. at 89 2– 94

. The reas on , we ex pl ai ne d, was th at § 35 83 (d ) “ pr ov id es t h e di st ric t

co ur t wit h br oa d di sc ret io n to im po se co nd it io ns th e co ur t co ns id ers to be ap pr op ria te in se tt in g a te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e.” Id

. at 89 3. Thu s, “ Mr. And is ’s ap pe al waiv er pr ev en t[e d] th is Co ur t fro m rev ie win g th e co nd it io ns of hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d de te rm in in g whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n i n i mp o s i ng th os e

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 2 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-co nd it io ns .” Id

. at 89 3– 94

. W e no te d, to o, th at “ th e il le ga l se nt en ce ex cep ti on to th e

ge ne ral en fo rcea bi li ty o f a n ap pe al waiv er is an ex tre m el y na rro w ex cep ti on .” Id

. at 89 2. W e do no t se e ho w Terry’s c a s e c o mp e l s a di ffer en t res ul t fro m th e on e in And is , whi ch in vo lv ed si m il ar su pe rv is ed -rel eas e co nd it io ns

. Se e id

. at 89 3

. Mo reo ve r, Terry fau lt s t he di st ric t co ur t fo r al le ge dl y no t m ak in g a n i nd iv id ua li zed

as se ss m en t whe n im

po si ng th e sp eci al co nd it io ns , bu t he fai ls to ack no wled ge th at th e d is tri ct co ur t b as ed th e co nd it io ns on th e fac ts as s ta te d i n h is pl ea ag reem en t.

Terry ’ s ch al le nge to the dis tr ibu tio n en ha nc em en t li ke wis e fai ls

. He al le ge s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y en ha nc ed hi s se nt en ce un de r U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .2(b )(3 )(B) be cau se th e reco rd do es no t su pp or t a fin di ng th at he in t e n d e d to di st rib ut e po rn og rap hy. N ot on ly did Terry fai l to ob ject to th is en ha nc em en t, he sti pu la te d t o it in hi s pl ea ag reem en t. He ag reed th at “ [b ]ecaus e th e of fen se s in vo lv ed di st rib ut io n of ch il d po rn og rap hy im ag es in ex ch an ge fo r or rece ip t of a th in g of va lu e[,] th e ba se of fen se le ve l is en ha nc ed 5 po in ts , pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .2(b )(3 )(B) .” Terry al so ag reed th at “ th e fact ua l ad m is si on s co nt ai ne d in Para gr ap h 3 of [th e] pl ea ag reem en t

. . . su pp or t th e im

po si ti on of th e ag reed -u po n Gui de li ne s cal cu la ti on s co nt ai ne d in [th e] ag reem en t.” By th es e ag reem en ts , Terry waiv ed hi s ch al le ng e to th e

e n h a nc em en t. “ A de fen da nt who ex pl ic it ly an d vo lu nt ari ly ex po se s hi m se lf to a

s p e c i f i c se nt en ce m ay no t ch al le ng e th at pu ni sh m en t on ap pe al .” Uni te d St at es v

. Ng uy en , 46 F.3 d 78 1, 78 3 (8t h Cir. 19 95 ). Pu t an ot he r way , Terry “ m erel y rece iv ed wha t h e h ad ba rg ai ne d fo r.” Id

.

Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s Ter ry ’s app eal

.

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

-3

-