2008 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 10-21-2008 

# U SA v . H ou gh 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 . 07-3283

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 anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

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 ll anova 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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . H ou gh" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 343. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/343NOT 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. 07- 3283

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. D A V ID A . H O U G H , J R ., A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 07- cr - 00002) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e D avi d St ew artC er cone

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober3, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R , C H A G A R E S a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: O ct ober21, 2008 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . Pur s uantt o a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement , D avi d H ough pl eade d gui l t yt o one countof k n o w in g lyre c e iv in g v isu a l d e p ictio n s o f m in o rs e n g a g e d in se x u a llye x p licit c o n d u c t, i n viol at i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 25 2(a) (2) . T he D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced H ou gh t o si xtym on ths’2

i ncar cer at i on, fol l ow ed byfi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. H ough appea l s hi s j udgm ent o f s e n t e n c e . F o rt h e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th b e l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yfort he part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t or yof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor t h onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. I n J une 2004, agent s fr om t he Feder al B ur eau of I nves t i gat i on exec ut ed a s ear ch w arr antatD avi d H ough’ s r es i dence and s ei zed hi s comput erand har d dr i ve, w hi ch c o n ta in e d im a g e s o f

m in o rs e n g a g e d in s e x u a lly e x p lic it c o n d u c t. O n J a n u a ry 3 , 2 0 0 7 , a g ra n d ju ryre tu rn e d a tw o -c o u n t in d ictm e n t, ch a rg in g H o u g h in C o u n t O n e w ith k n o w in g lyre c e iv in g v isu a l d e p ictio n s o f m in o rs e n g a g e d in se x u a llye x p licit c o n d u c t, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2252( a) ( 2) , and i n C ountT w o w i t h know i ngl ypos s es s i ng vi s ual d e p i c t i o n s o f

mi n o r s e n g a g e d i n s e x u a l l ye x p l i c i tc o n d u c t , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 2 (a)(4)(B ). H ough ent er ed i nt o a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementw i t h t he G overnm enti n w hi ch he a g r e e d t o p l e a d g u i l t yt o Co u n tOn e c h a r g i n g h i m wi t h a v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 2 25 2(a) (2) . T he o ffen se carri ed a st atutorym and at orym i nim um sent ence o f fi ve y ears ’ i m pr i s onm ent ; cons equent l y , t he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R epor tcal cul at ed the fe der al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ecomm endat i on, or i gi nal l ythi r t y - t hr ee t o for t y - one mont hs , t o be s i xt ym ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm entpur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 5G 1. 1. U nderthe pl ea a gr eement , t he3

G overnm entagr eed t o w i t hdr aw C ountT w o. H ough agr eed t o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o appea l t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence , exce pti f the G overnm entappea l ed fr om the s ent ence , t he s ent ence exce eded the s t atut or yl i m i tas s t at ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es C ode, orthe s ent ence unr eas onabl yexce eded the fe der al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. A tt he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent enci ng hear i ng, H ough di d notcont es tthe l ength of the sta tu to rym a n d a to ryf

iv e -y e a r m in im u m , b u t in ste a d re q u e ste d th a t th e se n ten c e b e sp lit b etw ee n inca rce rati o n an d h o m e d eten ti o n w ith elec tr o n ic m o n it o ri n g . T h e D istri ct C o u rt s ent ence d H ough t o s i xt ym ont hs ’ i ncar cer at i on, fol l ow ed byfi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. O ne of the condi t i ons of the s upervi s ed r el eas e i s thatH ough i s pr ohi bi t ed fr om a ss o c iatin g w ith c h ild re n u n d e r e ig h tee n y e a rs o f a g e , ex c e p t w h e re a re sp o n sib le a d u lt, a p p ro v e d b yH o u g h ’s p ro b a tio n o f f ice r a n d a w a re o f

H o u g h ’s b a c k g ro u n d a n d o f f e n se , is pr es ent . H ough di d notobj ectt o t hi s condi t i on atthe hea r i ng. H ough t i m el yappea l ed the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence . II. Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rHo u g h ’ s c a s e p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 2 3 1 a n d w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ). T h is C o u rt h a s s u b

jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r H o u g h ’s a p p e a l, ev e n th o u g h h e a g re e d to a n a p p e lla te w a iv e r i n h is p le a a g re e m e n t. U n itedS ta tes v . G w in n e tt , 483 F. 3d 200, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . H ow ever , w e mayr efus e t o exer ci s e thatj ur i s di ct i on upon a fi ndi ng t hat4

th e a p p e lla te w a iv e r i s v a lid . I d. W e make a de novo de t erm i nat i on as t o t he val i di t yof H o u g h ’s a p p e lla te w a iv e r. U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 5 2 3 F . 3 d 2 3 4 , 2 3 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). III . H ough r ai s es t w o i s s ues on appea l . Fi r s t , he cont ends thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed in re f u sin g to im p o se a se n ten c e sp litb e tw e e n in c a rc e ra tio n a n d h o m e d e ten tio n . W h ile h e d o e s n o tc o n t e s tt h a tt h e s t a tu t o r yma n d a t o r ymi n i mu m f o ra v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C. § 2252( a) ( 2) i s fi ve y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent , he ar gues thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed by i nt erpr et i ng t he s t atut or yt erm “i m pr i s oned” a s r efe r r i ng excl us i vel yt o i ncar cer at i on and n o t h o m e d e ten tio n . S e c o n d , H o u g h a ss e rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt v io late d h is co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t t o p roc rea te an d asso ciate w ith h is ch il d ren b yim p o sing in H o u g h ’s su p e rv ise d re lea se ter m s a c o n d iti o n p ro h ib iti n g h im f ro m h a v in g u n su p e rv ise d v isits w ith chi l dr en undert he age of ei ght een. I n r es pons e t o H ough’ s ar gum ent s , the G overnm ent as s er t s t hatt he appe l l at e w ai verpr ovi s i on i n t he pl ea a gr eementpr ecl udes H ough fr om r ai s i ng t hes e i s s ues . A l t ernat i vel y , t he G overnm entm ai nt ai ns H ough’ s cl ai m s ar e w i thout m er i t . W e conc l ude thatt he appe l l at e w ai veri s val i d and ther efor e do notr eac h t he m eri t s of H ou gh ’s cl ai m s. T hi s C our tw i l l fi nd an appe l l at e w ai vert o be val i d “i f ent er ed i nt o know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y , ” pr ovi ded thatt he r es ul t i ng w ai verdoes not“w or k a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Khat tak , 2 7 3 F .3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 2 -6 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). W e a p p ro a c h th is d e te rm in a tio n in th re e s te p s . See J acks on , 523 F. 3d at243- 44. Fi r s t , w e ana l y ze w hether5

th e d e f e n d a n t k n o w in g ly an d v o lu n ta ri ly en te re d in to th e a p p e lla te w a iv e r. I d. at 24 3 . If s o, ourat t ent i on t hen tur ns t o t he s cope of the appe l l at e w ai ver , l ooki ng s peci fi cal l yatt he a p p lic a b ility o f

a n ye x c e p tio n s s e t f

o rt h in th e w a iv e r. I

d. at244. Fi nal l y , w her e the defe ndanthas know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yent er ed i nt o t he w ai verand no enumer at ed exce pt i ons al l ow t he appe al , w e exa m i ne w hetheri nvoki ng the w ai verw oul d r es ul ti n a “mi s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ” I

d. A lth o u g h th is C o u rt h a s c h o se n n o t to a ttac h a sp e c if ic defi ni t i on t o “mi s carr i age of j us t i ce, ” w e have i ncl uded s ever al fac t or s t o gui de our anal y s i s . Pr i ort o “r el i evi ng t he def endantof the w ai ver , ” w e cons i der“[t ] he cl ar i t yof t he err or , i t s gr avi t y , i t s char act er( e. g. , w hetheri tconce r ns a fa cti s s ue, a s ent enci ng gui del i ne, ora s t atut or ym axi m um ) , the i m pactof the err oron t he def endant , the i m pact of corr ect i ng t he err oron t he governm ent , and the ext entt o w hi ch the def endant acqui es ced i n t he r es ul t . ” Khat tak , 273 F. 3d at563 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Teet er , 257 F. 3d 14, 25- 26 ( 1s tC i r . 2001) ) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons om i t t ed) . W i t h t hes e ana l yt i cal p ri n ciples, w e turn to H o u g h ’s ap p ell ate w aive r. Fi r s t , H ough does notcont es tthathe know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l yent er ed i nt o t he appel l at e w ai ver . Second, nei t herof the tw o i s s ues H ough r ai s es on appea l fal l i nt o one of the thr ee e xcept i ons t o t he appe l l at e w ai ver . T he w ai verpr ovi s i on of the pl ea agr eemental l ow s H ough t o di r ect l yappea l hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence onl yi f the G overnm entfi r s tappea l s t he s ent ence , the s ent ence exce eds the s t atut oryl i m i tas i ndi cat ed i n t he U ni t ed St at es C ode, orthe s ent ence unr eas onabl yexce eds the fe der al6

G uidel i nes range. T his app eal w as i nit i at ed b yH ou gh , no tthe G ov ernm ent; thu s, the fir st exce pt i on i s i nappl i cabl e. T he r emai ni ng tw o exce pt i ons pert ai n t o H ough chal l engi ng t he l ength of hi s s ent ence . H ough does notdi s put e the l ength of the s t atut oryfi ve- y ear m andat or ym i ni m um , butr athert akes i s s ue w i t h the “manner ” of s ervi ng thats ent ence s i nce the D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed hi s r eques tforhom e det ent i on. Such an as s ert i on does notfi ti nt o anyw ai verexce pt i on. A ddi t i onal l y , H ough’ s cons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o a term o f h is sup erv ised release d o es n o t qu esti o n the len g th o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s s ent ence . T her efor e, beca us e H ough’ s s i xty - m ont h s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entdoes not exce ed the s t atut or ym axi m um of tw entyy ear s , nordoes i tunr eas onabl yexce ed the r ange p r o v i d e d i n t h e f

e d e r a l G u i d e l i n e s , n o n e o f th e a p p e l l a t e w a i v e re x c e p t i o n s a p p l y. Fi nal l y , enfor ci ng t he w ai verw i l l notr es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. A s for H ough’ s s pl i t - s ent ence ar gum ent , w e do notfi nd thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s r efus al t o gr ant hom e det ent i on i n t he fa ce of a s t atut orym andat oryfi ve- y earm i ni m um amount s t o one of th o s e “ u n u s u a l c ir c u m s ta n c e [ s ]” th a t w o u ld n u llif ya n o th e rw is e v a lid w a iv e r. Khat tak , 2 7 3 F .3 d a t 5 6 2 . R e g a rd in g H o u g h ’s c o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e to a c o n d iti o n o f h is su p erv ised release , en fo rcing a w aive r th at resu lt s in the inf ri n g em en t up o n o n e’s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s cert ai nl ym ayamount t o a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. H ow ever , w e do n o tc o n s t ru e t h e t e r m o f Ho u g h ’ s s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e t o b r i n g a b o u ts u c h h a r m. D e f e n d a n ts c o n v icte d o f

c rim e s s im ilar to H o u g h ’s m a y“ lo se c u sto d yo f th e ir chi l dr en orhave r es t r i ct i ons pl ace d on thei rpar ent al r i ght s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Loy , 2377

F. 3d 251, 269 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . N evert hel es s , s uch i nt er fer ence w i t h t he fa m i l i al r el at i ons hi p m us tbe s uppor t ed byevi dence “thatchi l dr en ar e pot ent i al l yi n dangerfr om t hei rpar ent s . ” I

d. at269- 70. W her e a s ent enci ng courthas noti ndi cat ed thati ti nt ended a s upervi s ed r el eas e condi t i on r es t r i ct i ng a def endant ’ s cont actw i t h chi l dr en under ei ght een t o ext end t o t hatdefe ndant ’ s ow n chi l dr en, w e w i l l i nt erpr etthe condi t i on as a p p lyin g o n ly to th e c h ild re n o f o th e rs . I

d. at270. I n t hi s cas e, ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t hat t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r ti n t e n d e d t h e s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e c o n d i t i o n t o a p p l yt o Ho u g h ’ s o wn f a m ily , inc lu d in g a n yc h ild re n h e m a yh a v e d u rin g h is s u p e rv ise d re lea se ter m . W e w ill pr es um e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti nt ended the or dert o appl yonl yt o t he mi norchi l dr en of ot herpeopl e. A ccor di ngl y , enfor ci ng t he appe l l at e w ai verw i l l notr es ul ti n a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. I V. F o r th e re a so n s d isc u ss e d , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.