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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. B R ANDON GER

A LD FAR

RELL, AKA B randon Ge ra ld Fa

rre ll, Jr., AKA Ge ra ld Le e Farre ll, Jr., AKA Ge rla d L. Fa rre ll, Jr., De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30133

D.C . No. 1:04-c r-00180-B LW -4 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 B . Ly nn W inm ill, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July

6, 2015 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, a nd FR IEDLAND, C i rc uit Judge s . De fe nda nt B ran don Ge ra ld Fa

rre ll wa s c o nvic te d of inte rstate trave l with a m inor with the

inte nt to e nga g e in c rim ina l se x u a l a c tivity and posse ssion of c hild 

# FIL E D JUL 10 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).pornogra

phy . He a

p p e a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s im

p osition of 96 m

onths of im prisonm e nt to be followe d by fifte e n y e ars of supe rvise d

re l e a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not err whe n it c onc lude d tha t Fa rre ll’ s offe nse involve d atte m

pte d c rim i na l se x ua l a

buse for the purpose s of c a lc ulating theba se offe nse le ve l. Se e Unite d State s v. C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ) (sta nda rd of re vie w). Farre ll’ s a c tions while the m inor wa s a sle e p or pa sse d out a fte r taking m e dic ine and a vodka drink tha t he gave he r, a s we ll a s his a c tions le a ding up to the

night in a h o te l room

with one be d, we re suffic ie nt to c onstitute atte m pte d c rim ina l se xua l a

b use . 18 U.S.C . § 2242(2) (de fining a tte m pte d c rim ina l se xua l a buse ); se e Unite d State s v. Fa sthorse , 639 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th C ir. 2011); Unite d State s v. Ha dle y , 918 F.2d 848, 853–54 (9th C ir. 1990).
The distric t c ourt a l so did not err whe n it found tha t the fore ign e xc ha

nge stude nt wa s a

vulne ra ble vic tim an d a pplie d the two-point e nha nc e m e nt. Se e Unite d State s v. Johnson, 132 F.3d 1279, 1285–86 (9th C ir. 1997). Nor did it e

rr in c o m puting thetota l punishm e nt for the two c ounts of whic h Farre l l wa s c onvic te d. U.S. Se nte nc ing Guide line s M anua l § 5G1.2 (2003). Ha ving c orre c t ly 2c a lc ulat e d the tota l punishm e nt, the distric t c o urt did not a

pply an a bove Guide line s se nte nc e on C ount 3 of theindic t m e nt. Se e id.

Farre ll a rgue s tha t fifte e n y e ars of supe rvise d re l e a se is substa ntive ly unre a s ona

ble an d unc onstitutiona

lly disproportiona

te to his c rim e . Farre l l ha s a prior se x offe nse involving se xua l inte rc ourse with a 15-y e ar-old fe m a le . The distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion whe n it im pose d Farre ll’ s se nte nc e . Se e C arty , 520 F.3d a

t 993 (sta nda rd of re vie w). The distric t c ourt found tha t “ the public is ve ry

m uc h in ne e d of prote c tion from the de fe n da

nt” be c a u se of his

“ c l e arly c a lc u late d” offe n s e and his history showing “ a

n issue with y oung girls.” His use of a

c old pill a

nd vodka on this y oung girl a

nd the n atte m

pting to se xua lly a buse h e r a fte r she fe l l a sle e p or pa sse d out, c om bine d with his history , am ply shows thesubsta

ntive re a sona

ble ne ss of the le n gthy supe rvise d re le a s e te rm , e ve n if it im pose s a burde n on Fa

rre l l’ s visits with fa

m ily m e m

be rs in Europe . Se e Unite d State s v. C ope , 527 F.3d 944, 952–53 (9th C ir. 2008); se e a lso 18 U.S.C . § 3583(k) (a

uthoriz ing supe rvise d re l e a se for five y e ars to life ); U.S. Se nte n c ing Guide line s M anua l § 5D1.2(c ) (2003) (re c om m e nding sta

tutory m a xim um te rm of supe rvise d re le a se ). His se nte nc e is not unc onstitutiona lly disproportiona

te to his c rim e . Se e Unite d

State s v. W i llia

m s, 636 F.3d 1229, 1232–33 (9th C ir. 2011). 3AFFIRM E D.

4