2009 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 7-2-2009 

# U SA v . E dward R ich ard son 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 . 07-4507

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_2009

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 2009 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 . E dwar d R

ich ar d s on" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1081. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1081Hon. L ouis H. Poll ak, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Ea stern District * of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 1 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 4507

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. E DWARD R I CH AR DS ON, 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 rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D . C . C r i m . N o. 07- 564 ) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e Joseph E . Ir enas Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 6, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R and H A R D I M A N , C i r cui tJ udges , and PO L L A K , D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: J ul y2, 2009)

_____ OP I NI ON

______2

P O L L A K , D is tr ic t J u d g e . A ppel l antE dw ar d R i char ds on pl ed gui l t yt o a one- counti nform at i on for know i ngl ypos s es s i ng i m ages of chi l d por nogr aphy . R i char ds on chal l enges the re a so n a b len e ss o f

th e se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt. I. B e c a u se w e w rite p rim a rilyf o r th e p a rties , w h o a re f a m ili a r w ith th e c a se , w e w ill s um m ar i ze the fa ct s and pr ocedur al hi s t oryonl ybr i efl y . O n N ovember20, 2006, l aw e n f o r c e m e n to f

f i c e r s e x e c u t e d a s e a r c h w a r r a n ta tR i c h a r d s o n ’ s r e s i d e n c e i n C a p e M a y, N e w Je rse y . R ich a rd so n in f o rm e d th e o f

f ice rs th a t h e v iew e d c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yo n h is co m p u ter an d u sed h is co m p u ter t o sea rch fo r th e p o rno g rap h ic i m ag es. T h e o ff icers s e iz e d R ic h a rd s o n ’s c o m p u te r a n d f o u n d im a g e s o f

c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yo n h is h a rd d ri v e . A pp’ x 13. O n A pr i l 30, 2007, R i char ds on ent er ed a gui l t ypl ea i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tforN ew J er s ey . R i char ds on pl ed gui l t yt o one countof know i ngl ypos s es s i ng t hr ee orm or e gr aphi c i m ages of chi l d por nogr aphy , as defi ned by18 U . S. C . § 2256( 8) , thathad been tr ans por t ed i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2252A ( a) ( 5) ( B ) and § 2. A pp’ x 13. I n hi s pl ea a gr eement , R i char ds on s t i pul at ed t o know i ngl ypos s es s i ng 6 0 0 o r m o re im a g e s o f

c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y , an d th a t th e im a g e s re su lted f ro m u se o f

h is com pu t er and sho w ed m i no rs eng aged i n sexu al l yexp l i ci tcon du ct . R i chardson al so s t i pul at ed thathe knew t hats om e of the i m ages i nvol ved a mi norunderthe age of tw el ve3

y e a rs o ld . A p p ’x 1 7 . T h e D istric t C o u rt h e ld a se n ten c in g h e a rin g o n N o v e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , at w h ich it s ent ence d R i char ds on t o be i m pr i s oned forfi fty - one mont hs , fol l ow ed byfoury ear s of su p e rv ise d re lea se . T h e D istric t C o u rt a lso o rd e re d R ich a rd so n to re g iste r w ith th e sta te se x o f f e n d e r a g e n c yin a n ysta te w h e re h e re sid e s a n d is e m p lo y e d , su b m it t o unannounce d exami nat i on and s upervi s i on of hi s comput erequi pm ent , al l ow the i ns t al l at i on of m oni t or i ng s oftw ar e on hi s comput er , s ubm i tt o pol y gr aph exa m i nat i on, part i ci pate i n m ental health ev al uati on and treatm ent, paya fi ne o f $1 0, 00 0 an d o t herw i se compl yw i t h t he r equi r ement s of the U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce. A pp’ x 174- 79. T o arr i ve att he s ent ence , t he D i s t r i ctC our tus ed the thr ee- s t ep ana l y s i s pr es cr i bed i n U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 5 2 7 F . 3 d 2 8 2 , 2 8 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (“ G u n ter II ”) and U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (“ G un t er I ” ). Fi r s t , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcal cul at ed R i char ds on’ s adj us t ed off ens e l evel . I tfound thathi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yl evel w as I , agr eei ng w i t h t he r ecomm endat i on i n t he Pr eS e n ten c e R e p o rt. A p p ’x 1 3 5 . T h e n , the D istric t C o u rt a p p lied th re e e n h a n c e m e n ts to R i char ds on’ s or i gi nal offe ns e l evel of ei ght een–one beca us e the off ens e i nvol ved m aterial s co n tai n ing a m ino r un d er the ag e o f tw elve , an o ther f o r th e u se o f a co m p u ter, a n d th e th ir d b e c a u s e R ic h a rd s o n h a d 6 0 0 o r m o re im a g e s , p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2G 2. 2(a) (1) , (b) (2) , (b) (6) , and (b) (7) (D ), res pecti vely . T his broug ht the ad j ust ed o ffen se l evel t o tw enty - s even. T hen, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ubtr act ed thr ee l evel s foracc ept ance of4

r es pons i bi l i t ypur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1( a) and ( b) t o arr i ve atthe fi nal adj us t ed offe ns e l evel of tw enty - four . A pp’ x 134. W i t h a cr i m i nal hi s t oryof I and adj us t ed o f f e n s e le v e l o f

tw e n ty-f o u r, R ic h a rd s o n ’s g u id e lin e ra n g e w a s th e re f o re 5 1 to 6 3 m o n th s . A pp’ x 155. Second, t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatno form al departur e mot i on w as m ade by R i char ds on, A pp’ x 92, buthear d or al ar gum entfr om R i char ds on obj ect i ng t o appl i cat i on o f th e e n h an ce m en ts. R icha rdso n co n tend ed that the g u ideline e n h an ce m en ts w ere m o re appr opr i at e fora def

endantconvi ct ed of di s t r i but i on orm anufa ctur e of c hi l d por nogr aphy than fo r a d ef

en d an t con v ict ed o n lyo f p o sses sion , A p p ’x 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 . T h e D istri ct C o u rt r ej ect ed R i char ds on’ s ar gum ent , not i ng thatR i char ds on w as m aki ng a publ i c pol i cy a rg u m e n t q u e stio n in g th e ra tio n a le o f th e e n h a n c e m e n ts a n d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id notw i s h t o s ent ence R i char ds on bas ed on a pe r s onal agr eementordi s agr eementw i t h t hat pol i cy . A pp’ x 134- 39. T hi r d, t he D i s t r i ctC our thear d ar gum entaboutthe appl i cabi l i t yof the fa ct or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed R i char ds on’ s hi s t oryof bei ng a p rod u cti v e, ch u rch -go ing cit izen , b u t fo u n d that this hist o ryd id n o t fall o u tsi d e the n o rm of chi l d por nogr aphycas es . A pp’ x 158- 61. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound no nee d t o pr ovi de f o r a d d iti o n a l ed u c a tio n a l o r v o c a tio n a l train in g p ro g ra m s f o r th e d e f

e n d a n t, w h o is alread ya sk il led w o rke r, A p p ’x 1 6 8 -69 , n o r an yn ee d to p rov ide f o r th e d ef

en d an t’ s part i cul arm edi cal r equi r ement s . A pp’ x 170- 71. Fi nal l y , the D i s t r i ctC our tdet erm i ned5

that a gui deli nes sent ence w as approp ri at e and sent enced R i chardson t o fifty -one m on ths, a s e n te n c e a t th e b o tto m o f th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e . A p p ’x 1 7 1 .

II. O n appea l , R i char ds on chal l enges the r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence i m pos ed by the D i s tr i ctC our t . Speci fi cal l y , he cont ends thatthe D i s t r i ctC our toverw ei ght ed the g u idelines as a g ains t th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors a n d there b ym isap p li ed the T h ir d C ir cu it ’s s ent enci ng anal y s i s as out l i ned i n G u n ter II, 527 F. 3d at285 and G un t er I, 462 F. 3d at 2 4 7 . W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 (a). T h e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt is re v ie w e d f o r u n re a s o n a b le n e s s . U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 (2 0 0 5 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 327- 28 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T hatr evi ew i s under t aken a ccor di ng t o an abus e of d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd f

o r b o th p ro c e d u ra l a n d s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s . G a ll v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 1 2 8 S . C t. 58 6 , 5 9 7 (2 0 0 7 ); U nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 217- 18 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . A tbot h s t ages of r evi ew , the part ychal l engi ng the s ent ence has th e b u rd e n o f

d e m o n s tr a tin g u n re a s o n a b le n e s s . C ooper , 437 F. 3d at332. T o th e e x ten t th a t R ich a rd so n c h a llen g e s th e p ro c e d u ra l re a so n a b len e ss o f h is sen tenc e, w e f

ind that the D istri ct C o u rtd id n o t abu se it s d iscreti o n . T h e D istri ct C o u rt di s cus s ed the gui del i nes and the § 3553( a) fac t or s and fol l ow ed the thr ee- s t ep s ent enci ng anal y s i s out l i ned i n G un t er I, 4 6 2 F .3 d a t 2 4 7 . N e x t, w e a d d re s s th e s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s in q u ir y .6

W e have r ecogni zed that“[a ] w i t hi n- gui del i nes r ange s ent ence i s m or e l i kel yt o be r eas onabl e than one thatl i es out s i de the advi s orygui del i nes r ange , ” C ooper , 437 F. 3d at 3 3 1 , b u t w e h a v e stre ss e d th a t “a w ith in -g u id e lin e s s e n ten c e is n o t n e c e ss a rilyre a so n a b le per se . ” I

d. “A l t hough a w i t hi n- gui del i nes s ent ence demonstr at es the courtcons i der ed o n e o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs– n a m e ly , the g u id e lin e s ra n g e itse lf , 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(4 )– it does nots how t he courtcons i der ed the others t andar ds r efl ect ed i n t hats ect i on, as s um i ng theyw er e r ai s ed. ” I

d. a t 3 3 0 . “A s l ong as a s ent ence fal l s w i t hi n t he br oad r ange of p o s s i b l e s e n t e n c e s t h a tc a n b e c o n s i d e r e d r e a s o n a b l e i n l i g h to f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c t o r s , we m us taff i r m . ” U nited S tates v. W

ise , 5 1 5 F .3 d a t 2 1 8 ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( e n b a n c ). R ich a rd so n c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt “ ig n o re d th e a m p le e v id e n c e b e f o re it” b e c a u se it di d notdi s t i ngui s h R i char ds on’ s cas e fr om the “mi ne run of ca s es ” i n l i ghtof R i char ds on’ s di agnos i s of cl i ni cal depr es s i on, hi s need f orm edi cat i on forphy s i cal and psy cho l og i cal con dit i on s, and his psy cho l og i cal evaluat i on st at i ng that the o ffen se w as a p ro d u c t o f

th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s s u rr o u n d in g h im a t th e tim e . B ri e f f o r A p p e lla n t a t 3 8 . H ow ever , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d t ake the var i ous § 3553( a) fac t or s in to a c c o u n t. I n cons i der at i on of the fi r s tfac t or–the def endant ’ s hi s t ory–the D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thati tw as us i ng i t s exper i ence w i t h “more than a hundr ed of thes e s ent ence s ” t o fi nd t hat nei thert he uni que ci r cumst ance s of the def endantnorthe off

ens e s uppor t ed a va r i ance fr om t he gui del i nes . A pp’ x 157, 160. T he j udge not ed thatthe l ack of pr i orcr i m i nalThe District Court cited United States v. Rick s , 494 F.3d 394 ( 3d Cir. 2007) in the 1 sentenc ing c olloquy

to support its vi ew that “policy disagreements arenot a basis for by passing the guidelines.” App’ x164. We rec ognized in Un ited S tates v . R usse ll

that Ri ck s is no longer g ood law. See 564 F.3d 200, 205 ( 3d Cir. 2009) (cla rifying theeff

ect of Spears v. United States ,

--- - U.S. --- -, 129 S. Ct. 840 (2009) by findingthat this court’s holding in Ricksthat “district courts may

not categ orically

reje ct the [crac k-powder coc aine] ratio” is no long er g ood law (qu o t i n g Ricks , 49 4 F .3 d at 40 1) ); see Spe ars v. United States , 129 S. Ct . at 844 (“ [D] istrict courts are entitled to re

ject and va

ry cate g orically

from the c rac k-coc aine Guide lines based on a policy disagreement with those Guidelines.”) . But a s we re ad the District Court’s discussion, wesee its use of Ri ck s wa s b a sic a lly auxil iary to its analysis. Even if Ricksbe deemed to have c onstitut ed moresubstantial support for the D istrict Court’s analysis, invocation of the ca se would still have been harmless error : 7 h is to ry d e s e rv e d c o n s id e ra tio n , b u t w a s n o t o u ts id e th e n o rm o f c a s e s . A p p ’x 1 6 2 . R ich a rd so n a ss e rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt o n lym a d e a “ b ro a d , g e n e ra l sta tem e n t” in c o n s id e ra tio n o f

th e s e ri o u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e w ith in th e s e c o n d § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to r. B ri e f f o r A p p e lla n t a t 3 8 . T h e s e n te n c in g ju d g e ’s a n a lysis w a s m o re th a n a d e q u a te . See U ni t ed Stat es v. O lhovs ky, 562 F. 3d 530, 553 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( expl ai ni ng thatthe s ent enci ng j udge s houl d s etfor t h enough t o s at i s fythe appe l l at e courtthathe ors he has c o n s i d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s ’ a r g u m e n t s , h a s a r e a s o n e d b a s i s f o re x e r c i s i n g h i s o w n a u t h o r i ty, and has expl ai ned the r ej ect i on of anynon- fr i vol ous ar gum ent s ) . T he j udge cons i der ed th e se rio u sn e ss o f

th e c rim e o f

p o ss e ss io n o f

c h ildp o rn o g ra p h y , d isc u ss in g w h e th e r, if h is per s onal vi ew of the s er i ous nes s of the off ens e di ffe r ed fr om thatr efl ect ed i n t he g u id e lin e s, it w o u ld b e a p p ro p ria te f o r h im to se n ten c e R ich a rd so n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith that vi ew . A ft er di scussi ng his con cern w i th sentenci ng dis pari t i es based o n judges’

“ o w n n o tio n [ s ] o f

p u b lic p o lic y ,” th e se n ten c in g ju d g e d e c id e d to e m p lo yh is d isc re tio n to n o t “ s u b s titu te ” h is o w n ju d g m e n t. A p p ’x 1 7 3 -7 4 . 1thereis no reason to suppose that, had the District Court not included Ricksin its analysis, a

different assessment of

the sec ond § 3553(a) fac tor would havebeen a rrived at and a diff

erent sentenc e imposed. See U nited States v. Smalley , 517 F.3d 208, 213 ( 3d Cir. 2008) (statingthe sta nd ard fo r h arm le ss error

review i s whe ther t

hedis tric t c ou

rt wo uld havearrive d at th esame sentenc ea

bs e nt a n invalid c a lculatio n und e r t

heguide lin e s) . TheDi stric t Co ur t sp e c if ic a lly conclude d that “[e]ven wereIto agreewith the [pol icy] arguments . . . Idon’t see a n argument here . The facts uncontestedly support eac h of the thre e enha ncements.” App’x 135. 8 W hen the D i s t r i ctC our taddr es s ed R i char ds on’ s m edi cal needs , i tdeci ded thatt he B u rea u o f P ri so n s co u ld p rov ide th e c are that h e n ee d ed . A p p ’x 1 7 0 -71 . T h e re co rd sh o w s tha t th e D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyco n side red the in fo rm ati o n ab o u t R icha rdso n ’s phy s i cal and ps y chol ogi cal condi t i ons w hen di s cus s i ng thi s fac t or . E ven af t erthe D i s tr i ct C our tfi ni s hed i t s s ent enci ng anal y s i s , i tm ent i oned s peci fi cal l ythati tw oul d r eques tt hat the B ur eau of

Pr i s ons “eva l uat [e] . . . w hatI cons i dert o be [Ri char ds on’ s ] s er i ous m edical con dit i on s [and ] i ncarcerat e him i n a p l ace t hat has the ab i l i t yt o care for tho se needs . ” A pp’ x 181- 82. T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o not ed thati tw ant ed the B ur eau of P ri s o n s to e v a lu a te R ic h a rd s o n ’s b a c k in ju ry a n d d e p re s s io n . A p p ’x 1 8 2 . I n s um , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ent ence , atthe bot t om of the gui del i nes , w as m ade rea so n ab lyaf

ter pro p er c o n side rati o n o f th e g u idelines an d § 3 5 5 3 (a) fact ors. III . Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.