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 5-11-2010 

# U SA v . R yan Ro dge rs 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 . 09-2264

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 a nova . 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 l l a nova 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 a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova 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 l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . R yan Rod g e r s " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1366. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1366H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor * t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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- 2264 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RY A N A D A M S RO D G ER S, A ppel l ant

A ppeal of a J udgm entof Sent ence E nt er ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a

( C r i m . N o. 1- 07- cr - 00057- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: M au ri ce B . C o h il l, Jr. Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

February2, 2010 B e f o re : M c K E E , C h ie f

J u d g e , H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge , a n d P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge . * ( Fi l ed: M ay11, 2010 ) OP I NI ONAs Court Four, posse ssion of child pornography, was a lesser- included off

ense to re ceipt 1 of child pornography, Rodgers’ open plea to all counts c harg ed did not result in an adjudica tion 2. P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge A ppel l antR y an A dam R odger s chal l enges t he l ength of the s ent ence i m pos ed on hi m aft era gui l t ypl ea t o t w o count s of vi ol at i ng 18 U . S. C . § 2252( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( t r ans por t at i on and att empt ed tr ans por t at i on of m at er i al depi ct i ng t he s exual expl oi t at i on of a mi nor ) , and one c ountof vi ol at i ng 18 U . S. C . § 2252( a) ( 2) , ( b) ( 1) ( r ece i ptand d istrib u tio n o f

m a ter ial d e p ictin g th e se x u a l ex p lo itatio n o f a m in o r). H e a rg u e s h is s e n t e n c e wa s b o t h p r o c e d u r a l l ya n d s u b s t a n t i v e l yu n r e a s o n a b l e . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement( I C E ) offi cer s conduct ed an i nt ernat i onal u n d e rc o v e r o p e ra tio n tar g e tin g d istrib u tio n o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yo v e r a n in ter n e t f ile s h a r i n g s e r v i c e . Du r i n g t h i s o p e r a t i o n , Ro d g e r s s e n th u n d r e d s o f i ma g e s t o t wo u n d erc o v er IC E o ff

icers. O v er a p eriod o f a p p rox im atelyn ine m o n ths, R o d g ers po sses sed and t raded w el l ov er 600 im ages of chil d p ornog raphy , st i l l s and m ov i es, depi ct i ng y oung chi l dr en enga ged i n s exual act s . R odger s al s o t ol d agent s t hathe had s exual cont actw i t h s peci fi c chi l dr en, i ncl udi ng hi s cous i n, and w i t h hi s ow n m ot her . T he s t or i es R odger s t ol d t o t he age nt s w er e nott rue. I C E exec ut ed a s ear ch w arr antof R odger s ’ hous e uncove r i ng hundr eds of i m ages of chi l d por nogr aphy . R odger s fac ed fo u r co u n ts fo r ac ti v it ies i n v o lving the trad ing o f c h il d p o rno g rap h yo v er h is co m p u ter. 1of guilt on C ount Four a nd he did not rec eive a

sentenc e for

Count Four. 3. A tt he t i m e of hi s arr es t , R odger s w as 22 y ear s ol d and had no pr i orcr i m i nal re c o rd o r re c o rd o f

d e lin q u e n c y . R o d g e rs’ e m p lo y e r, f a m ily , an d f

rie n d s te stif

ied th a t h is v iew in g c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yw a s in c o n sis ten t w ith w h a t th e yk n e w o f h im . H e liv e d w ith h is p a re n ts a n d h a d d ro p p e d o u t o f c o lleg e d u e to a se izu re d iso rd e r th a t p re v e n ted h im f ro m d ri v in g . D ur i ng s ent enci ng, R odger s , aft erchangi ng couns el , w i t hdr ew hi s obj ect i ons t o t he pr es ent ence r epor t ’ s gui del i ne ca l cul at i on of 210 t o 262 m ont hs and agr eed the gui del i ne r ange w as corr ect l ycal cul at ed. T hi s w as bas ed on a s t i pul at i on t hatt he off ens e l evel w as a 37 w i t h a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I . H e, how ever , as ked fora var i ance . R odger s i nt r oduced t es t i m onyfr om a ps y chol ogi s tw ho s peci al i zed i n s ex off ender tre a tm e n t. T h e p sy c h o lo g ist f o u n d th a t se v e ra l f

a c to rs in d ica ted th a t R o d g e rs w o u ld res po nd w el l t o tr eat m ent: such p ert i nen tfact ors w ere that he w as open abo ut hi s act i on s, he had a cce pt ed bl ame, he w as w i l l i ng t o engage i n t r eatm ent , he w as r ece i vi ng t r eatm ent f o r d e p re ss io n , h e h a d a su p p o rtiv e f a m ily , an d h e h a d th e a b ili tyto sh o w e m p a th yto vi ct i m s . H ow ever , t he ps y chol ogi s tdi agnos ed R odger s as a pedophi l e due t o hi s bei ng “a p re d a to r o n th e in ter n e t.” H e a lso sta ted th a t R o d g e rs s h o u ld n o t h a v e c o n tac t w ith ch il d ren w ith o u t th e a p p rov al of h is th era p isto r fu ture p rob ati o n o ff icer an d that R o d g ers w as a dange rt o chi l dr en. T he ps y chol ogi s tal s o acknow l edged, on cr os s - exami nat i on, t hatcert ai n fac t or s , s uch as vi ew i ng i m ages of bes t i al i t yand bondage , and fa nt as i es about4.

sp e c if ic c h ild re n , p re se n ted c h a llen g e s to R o d g e rs’ tre a tm e n t. R o d g ers a rgu ed that the s en tenc ing en h an ce m en ts fo r th e u se o f th e c o m p u ter, n u m b e r o f

im a g e s, a n d p o ss e ss io n o f im a g e s o f

p re p u b e sc e n t ch ild re n , w e re in a p p ro p ria te forhi s cas e, as s uch fa ct or s ar e pr es enti n al m os tal l offe ns es of thi s t ype. T he D i s t r i ct C ou rtdecided to al t er the g uidel i ne rang e byl ow eri ng t he o ffen se l evel byt w o level s, t hus r emovi ng t he enha ncementforus e of a comput er , as t hatenhanc ementw as pr es ent i n m ostcases and resul t ed in a sent ence “ great er than i s necessaryt o p rovi de just puni s hm ent . ” W i t h t he r emoval of thatenhanc ement , t he gui del i ne r ange w as 168 t o 210 m o n ths. T h e D istri ct C o u rtsen tenc ed R o d g ers to 1 6 8 m o n ths to b e f o ll o w ed b y1 5 y ea rs of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T hi s w as att he l ow end of the gui del i ne r ange f ol l ow i ng t he re m o v a l o f

th e e n h a n c e m e n t. II. W e re v ie w th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s s e n te n c e f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . G al lv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ). W e b e g in b yre v ie w in g f o r a n yp ro c e d u ra l e rr o rs . U ni t ed S ta tes v . Se v illa , 541 F. 3d 226, 230 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . W e then r evi ew the s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence r egar dl es s of w hetheri tfal l s w i t hi n t he pr operr ange e s ta b lis h e d b yth e g u id e lin e s . Id . at230. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , w e art i cul at ed a thr ee- s t ep pr oces s fort he di s t r i ctcour tt o fol l ow : 1) t he dis t ri ctcou rtm ustcal culat e t he d efen dan t ’s gu i deli nes sent ence, 2) t he d i stri ctcou rtm ust form al l yrul e on m oti on s and st at e w hetheri ti s grant i ng a dep arture, and 3) i tm ustSe c tio n 3 55 3( a) re quire s c on sid e ra tio n o f t hefo llo wingfac tor s: 2 (1) the na ture a nd circumstances of

the offense and thehistory and cha rac teristics of the de fend ant; (2) the ne ed for

the sentenc e imposed-- (A) to refle ct the seriousness of the off ense, to promote respec t for the law , and to provide jus t pu nis hment f

or theof fens e ; (B ) t o a ff ord ade qu atede te rre nc eto c ri min a l c on du c t; (C) to protec t the public from fur ther c rimes of the de fenda nt; and (D) to provide the def

endant with nee ded educ ational or voc ational training , medical c are , o r o ther c or

re c tio nal tre atment in th emos t e ff e c tiv emann e r; (3 ) t hekin ds of

se ntenc e s availa

ble ; (4) the kinds of sentenceand the sentencingrang e esta blished for-- (A) theapplicablecate g ory of off ense c ommitt ed by

the applica

ble categ ory

of de fend ant a s set f

or th in th eguide lin e s

. . . (5) a ny pertinent policy

statement--

. . . (6) the ne ed to avoid unwa rra nted sentenc e disparities among de fenda nts with sim ilar rec ords who havebeen f

ound guilty

of similar conduc t; and (7) the ne ed to provide restitution t o any victims of the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 5. e x e rc is e d is c re tio n in c o n s id e ri n g th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . I d. at247. R o d g e rs a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt c o m m itt e d p ro c e d u ra l er ro r b yin a d e q u a tely expl ai ni ng i t s appl i cat i on of the§ 3553( a) fac t or s and bynotaddr es s i ng w hyi tr ej ect ed 2 R odger s ’ r eques tof a s ent ence of a s i x- and- hal f- y earpr i s on t erm fol l ow ed byan ext ended p e ri o d o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . A di s t r i ctcour t“mustadequa t el yexpl ai n t he chos en s ent ence t o al l ow for m eani ngful appel l at e r evi ew and t o pr om ot e the per cept i on of fa i rs ent enci ng. ” G a ll , 552 U . S. at50. I n i t s expl anat i on, t he di s t r i ctcour tm us t“ac know l edge a nd r es pond t o any pr oper l ypr es ent ed s ent enci ng ar gum entw hi ch has col or abl e l egal m er i tand a f actual6.

bas i s . ” U

nited S tates v. A usbu rn , 502 F. 3d 313, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s cus s i on of the § 3553( a) fac t or s , al bei tbr i ef, w as nott he s or tof “r ot e s t at ement ” of the § 3553( a) fac t or s thatw e found pr obl emat i c i n A usbu rn . 502 F. 3d at329. T he D i s t r i ctC our tcl ear l ycons i der ed the natur e of the off ens e and char act er i s t i cs of the def endant . T he courtdepart ed dow nw ar d byr emovi ng t he enhanc ementforus e of a comput er , beca us e i n t hatr es pectR odger s ’ offe ns e w as not exce pt i onal . T he courtal s o di s cus s ed R odger s ’ l ack of a pr i orcr i m i nal hi s t or yand the pot ent i al benef

i t s of R odger s r ece i vi ng m ent al heal t h and al cohol t r eatm ent . T hus t he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed the i ndi vi dual ci r cumst ance s of R odger s and hi s offe ns e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o cons i der ed the nee d fort he s ent ence , t he ki nds of s ent ence s a v a ilab le a n d th e se n ten c in g ra n g e u n d e r th e g u id e lin e s, w h ile a d ju stin g th e se n ten c e to avoi d unw arr ant ed di s par i t i es among defendant s w i t h s i m i l arr ecor ds . T he courtnot ed t hatt he s ent ence r efl ect ed the s er i ous nes s of the cr i m e and pr ovi ded j us tpuni s hm entfor it, w h ile a lso a llo w in g R o d g e rs to re c e iv e e d u c a tio n a n d v o c a tio n a l train in g to g a in empl oym entonce r el eas ed. T hi s di s cus s i on, t ogetherw i t h t he r emoval of the us e of a comput erenhanc ement , s how s a cons i der at i on of the s ent ence , t he gui del i ne r ange, and al t ernat i ves. R odger s ar gues t hati tw as pr ocedur al err ort o notexpr es s l ycons i dert he pr opos ed s i x- and- a- hal f- y ears ent ence . H ow ever , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed the ar gum enton7.

w h ich th e re co m m en d ati o n w as b ase d

– that the e n h an ce m en ts fo r use o f a co m p u ter, im a g e s o f

p re p u b e sc e n t m in o rs, a n d n u m b e r o f im a g e s w e re in a p p ro p ria te e n h a n c e m e n ts a s s u c h f a c to rs w e re p re se n t in m o st c a se s. W h ile it is th e p re f e rre d c o u rse to e x p re ss ly ad d ress the d ef

en d an t’ s arg u m en ts, a d istri ct co u rtn ee d n o t “ex p li cit lyrule o n ev ery ar gum entt hatm aybe adva nced, i f otheras pect s of the s ent enci ng deci s i on m ake a rul i ng i m pl i ci t . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . G o

ff , 501 F. 3d 250, 256 n. 10 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . T he D i s t r i ct C our tgr ant ed a de par tur e bas ed on the r at i onal e adva nced byR odger s w i t h r egar d t o t he us e of a comput erenhanc ement , t hus s how i ng cons i der at i on of the ar gum ent , even though the c o u rtd id n o t r em o v e a ll the s u g g ested en h an ce m en ts. In a d d it ion , the D istri ct C o u rt s ta te d it c o n s id e re d th e p s y c h o lo g is t’ s te s tim o n ya n d th e p o te n tia l f o r R o d g e rs ’ t re a tm e n t. T hus , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d addr es s t he ar gum ent s advanc ed byR odger s ats ent enci ng. R odger s al s o ar gues t hathi s s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e due t o t he fa ct t hathe i s a 22- y ear - ol d, fi r s t - t i m e off ender , w ho i s r ece i vi ng t r eatm entfors ubs t ance abus e and de pr es s i on, and i s l i kel yt o r es pond w el l t o t r eatm entfors ex off ender s . O ur s ubs t ant i ve r evi ew r equi r es us nott o focus on one ort w o fac t or s , buton t he t ot al i t yof the c ir c u m s ta n c e s . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (en b an c). “If th e d istric t co u rt' s s e n ten c e is p ro c e d u ra llyso u n d , w e w ill a f f irm it u n les s n o re a so n a b le s ent enci ng cour tw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on t hatpar t i cul ardefe ndantfor t he r eas ons t he di s t r i ctcour tpr ovi ded. ” I d. a t 5 6 8 . T he s ent ence i m pos ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our tw as r eas onabl e. W hi l e R odger s ar gues8.

t hatt her e ar e mi t i gat i ng fac t or s s uch as hi s l ack of a cr i m i nal r ecor d and abi l i t yt o be t r eat ed, t he fa ct s of R odger s ’ offe ns e ar e qui t e s er i ous . R odger s pos s es s ed and tr aded sev era l hu n d red ex tr em elyg rap h ic i m ag es o f v eryy o u n g ch il d ren . H is ow n ex p ert d ia g n o s e d h im a s a p e d o p h ile a n d s ta te d th a t h e c o n tin u e d to b e a th re a t to c h ild re n . G iv e n th e se v e rityo f

th e o f f e n se a n d th e p sy c h o lo g ist’s o p in io n th a t h e p o se d a d a n g e r to chi l dr en, w e ca nnots ayt hatt he s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. III . F o r th e re a so n s s tate d , w e w ill a f f irm th e se n ten c e o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.