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 4-13-2010 

# U SA v . C hri s t ophe r Rudow 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 . 09-3367

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_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 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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . C hri s t op he r R

udow " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1518. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1518NOT 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- 3367

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. C H R I S T O P H E R MI C H A E L R U D O W, 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

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N um ber09- cr - 00062) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G arr ettE . B r ow n, J uni or

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

A pr i l 12, 2010 B e f o re : F IS H E R , H A R D IM A N , a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: A pr i l 13, 2010)

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antC hr i s t opherR udow chal l enges both the pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s of hi s 326- m onth s ent ence aft erpl eadi ng gui l tyt o one countof pr oduct i on o f c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h yi n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 5 1 ( a ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. B egi nni ng on T hanks gi vi ng D ay2006 and cont i nui ng thr ough J anuary2007, R u d o w m a d e s e v e ra l v id e o s o f h im s e lf s e x u a lly a b u s in g h is f

o u rt e e n -ye a r- o ld d a u g h te r. A f te r t h e v ic tim d is c lo s e d th e a b u s e to h e r m o th e r, R u d o w w a s a rr e s te d b ylo c a l p o lic e . A s ear ch of Rudow ’ s hom e y i el ded s ever al vi deos s how i ng R udow abus i ng hi s daught er a s w e l l a s o v e rtw e n ty o th e rv i d e o s d e p i c t i n g c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h y. In F e b ru a ry2 0 0 9 , R u d o w w a s c h a rg e d w ith o n e c o u n t o f p ro d u c tio n o f

c h ild pornogr aphyunder18 U . S. C . § 2251( a) . R udow pl eade d gui l typur s uantt o a w r i t t en pl ea a g re e m e n t in w h ich h e stip u late d th a t h is o f f e n se in v o lv e d se x u a l co n tac t w ith h is daught er . T he D i s tr i ctC our tcal cul at ed R udow ’ s advi s oryG ui del i nes i m pr i s onm ent ra n g e a s 2 9 2 to 3 6 0 m o n th s. T h e se v e rityo f R u d o w ’s G u id e lin e s ra n g e w a s d riv e n in p art byh is si x p ri o r fe lon yco n v ict ion s, w h ich p lace d h im in crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryV I. A ts ent enci ng, R udow nei therchal l enged the ca l cul at i on of hi s G ui del i nes r ange n o r arg u ed fo r a d o w n w ard d ep arture. Instea d , h e re q u ested a sig n ifi ca n t do w n w ard v a ria n c e to 1 8 0 m o n th s, th e m in im u m se n ten c e a llo w e d b ysta tu te. In su p p o rt o f th is re q u e st, R u d o w a rg u e d th a t h is lif e lo n g h e ro in a d d ictio n se v e re lyim p a ire d h is a b ili tyto3

m ake d eci si on s and thata fi ft een-y ear s entence w ou l d ad equ at el yrefl ectthe seri ou sness of the off

ens e. R udow ci t ed a s tudys ugges t i ng thathe w oul d pos e a l ow r i s k of re c id iv ism u p o n re lea se a n d c laim e d th e m a n d a to rym in im u m w o u ld a f f o rd a m p le o p p o rtu n ityf

o r re h a b ili tatio n . F in a lly , h e a rg u e d th a t U S S G § 2 G 2 .1 w a s n o t en tit led to defe r ence bythe D i s tr i ctC our tbeca us e i tw as i m pr oper l yadopt ed bythe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. R e jec tin g th e se a rg u m e n ts, th e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e “ q u ite r eas onabl e” gi ven the fa ct s of the ca s e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfocus ed i n part i cul aron the s er i ous natur e of Rudow ’ s offe ns e, i t s i m pacton hi s daught er , and R udow ’ s l engthy c ri m in a l h is to ry, w h ic h b e lie d a n ys u g g e s tio n th a t h e p o s e d a m in im a l r is k o f re c id iv is m . C ons equent l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tr efus ed t o varydow nw ar d and i m pos ed a s ent ence of 326 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , the mi dpoi ntof the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange. II. A. R ud ow argues his sent ence is proced ural l yun soun d fo r three r easons. F i r s t , h e c l a i ms th e Di s tr i c tCo u r ta p p l i e d th e “ p a r s i mo n yp r o v i s i o n ” o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) onl yw i thi n t he conf i nes of hi s G ui del i nes r ange of 292 t o 360 m onths i ns t ead of w i thi n the s t atut oryr ange of 180 t o 360 m onths . St at ed anotherw ay , R udow cont ends the D i s tr i ctC our tm i s t akenl ycons i der ed onl yw hatG ui del i nes s ent ence , and notw hat4

s ent ence i n gener al , w oul d be “s uffi ci entbutnotgr eat erthan nec es s ary ” t o achi eve the sen tenc ing p u rpo ses e n u m era ted in § 3 5 5 3 (a)(2). T o t he ext entR udow i m pl i es thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr oneous l ytr eat ed the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange a s m andat ory , he i s i ncorr ect . T he D i s tr i ctC our texpl ai ned thati tw as “l ook[i ng] atthe gui del i nes as gui del i nes ” onl y . A pp. at176. A ft er cons i der i ng R udow ’ s G ui del i nes r ange “ i n l i ghtof the s ent enci ng fac t or s underSect i on 3553( a) [, ] ” the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatr ange “ qui t e r eas onabl e” a nd “appr opr i at e” gi ven th e p a rt ic u la r f

a c ts a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e c a s e . Id . at176, 180. N o r d id th e D istric t C o u rt e rr b ya p p ly in g th e p a rsim o n yp ro v isio n o n lyw ith in R udow ’ s G ui del i nes r ange. R udow corr ect l ynot es thataft erdet erm i ni ng thatthe G u id e lin e s w e re “ re a so n a b le” a n d “ a p p ro p ria te” in h is c a se , the D istric t C o u rt sta ted it w o u ld “ im p o se a c o n c e p t o f n o m o re th a n n e c e ss a ry , len ien c y ” to p in p o in t a s p e c if ic s ent ence w i thi n R udow ’ s br oaderG ui del i nes r ange. A pp. at180. B utR udow i gnor es t he D istri ct C o u rt ’s ea rl ier st atem en t th at i t w o u ld loo k g en era ll yto the “se n tenc ing fa ctors underSect i on 3553( a) ” and “ tr y [] t o i m pos e a s ent ence . . . [thati s ] s uffi ci ent , butnot gr eat erthan nec es s ary , t o compl yw i th the s t atut orypurpos e. ” Id . at176. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt th e n e x p lain e d w h yth e se n ten c in g ra n g e y ield e d b yth e G u id e lin e s w a s re a so n a b le in lig h t o f

th e a p p lic a b le § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs . See A pp. at176- 80. A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ct C our tcomm i t t ed no pr ocedur al err ori n i t s appl i cat i on of the par s i m onypr ovi s i on.5

R u d o w n e x t cla im s 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 yd e p riv in g h im of an “ i ndi vi dual i zed s ent enci ng, ” s ee 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 ) (e n b a n c ), w h e n it p lac e d u n d u e e m p h a sis o n C o n g re ss ’s in ten t to p u n ish c h ild pornogr aphyoffe ns es har s hl y . W e di s agr ee. U nder§ 3553( a) , a di s tr i ctcourtm us tcons i der , among ot herthi ngs , “the nee d for th e s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d . . . t o r e f l e c tth e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e . . . . ” 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 55 3(a) (2) (A ). H ere, the D i stri ctC ou rtdid j ustthat, ci t i ng C on gress ’s recenti ncrease of the mandat orym i ni m um s etfor th i n § 2251( e) as evi dence thatC ongr es s cons i der ed o f f e n se s u n d e r § 2 2 5 1 (a ) to b e q u ite s e rio u s. T h e D istric t C o u rt th e n p ro c e e d e d to c o n d u c t th e in d iv id u a liz e d s e n te n c in g a n a lysis th a t R u d o w c la im s w a s la c k in g . Speci fi cal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed the i m pactof R udow ’ s cr i m e on the vi ct i m ; t he ci r cumst ance s of R udow ’ s offe ns e, i ncl udi ng the fa ctthatthe vi ct i m w as hi s daught erand that the o ff

en se in v o lved p h y sical sex u al ab u se; an d , m o st si g n ifi ca n tl y , R u d o w ’s pervas i ve cr i m i nal hi s t ory . T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r el i ance on thes e fa ct or s — al l of w hi ch w e re a p p ro p ria telyc o n sid e re d u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a )— d e m o n stra tes th a t C o n g re ss ’s in ten t to puni s h § 2251( a) offe ns es har s hl yw as butone of s ever al component s thati nfl uence d t he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s s ent enci ng deci s i on. Fi nal l y , R udow cl ai m s the D i s tr i ctC our tcomm i t t ed pr ocedur al err orw hen i tfai l ed t o co nsi der and res po nd t o several of h i s ar gu m ents . A dis tri ctcou rtneed no t“dis cuss everyar gum entm ade bya l i t i ganti f an a r gum enti s cl ear l yw i thoutm er i t . ” U ni t ed Stat esItis l ikew ise ap p are n t th at th e D istri ct C o u rtco n side red an d rejected R u d o w ’s 1 a rg u m e n t th a t h is lif

e tim e o f h e ro in u s e w a rr a n te d a d o w n w a rd v a ri a n c e . See A pp. at177 ( “N ow , the ar gum entthatthi s i s notthe r eal defe ndantbeca us e he c om m i t s thes e cr i m es w hen he’ s underthe i nfl uence of drugs i s nota mi t i gat i ng fac t orher e, as couns el fort he g o v e rn m e n t ap p ro p ria telya rg u e s.” ). T h o u g h th e D istric t C o u rt’s a n a ly sis o f th is s p e c if

ic ar gum entw as t er s e, i tcons i der ed the ar gum entand r efus ed t o acc epti ti n l i ghtof other re le v a n t f

a c to rs u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ). T h is d e te rm in a tio n w a s n o t p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le . 6 v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he r ecor d m us tdemonstr at e, how ever , t hat th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tr e c o g n i z e d a n d r e s p o n d e d t o a n y n o n - f r i v o l o u s a r g u m e n t s a d v a n c e d b y a d e f e n d a n t a t s e n te n c in g . U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 4 6 7 F . 3 d 8 3 4 , 8 4 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). R u d o w firstco n tend s the D istri ct C o u rtfa il ed to co n side r his arg u m en t fo r a d o w n w a rd v a ria n c e b a se d o n th e f a c t th a t h is G u id e lin e s ra n g e w a s u n n e c e ss a rilyc lo se to the s t atut orym axi m um . I ti s cl earfr om the r ecor d, how ever , thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tgave ful l cons i der at i on t o R udow ’ s r eques tfora dow nw ar d var i ance . A l though R udow i dent i fi ed mi t i gat i ng fac t or s thats uppor t ed a f i ndi ng of r educe d cul pabi l i ty , the D i s tr i ct C our tci t ed the fol l ow i ng count ervai l i ng cons i der at i ons : the off ens e i nvol ved a mi nor underthe age of s i xt een; the off ens e i nvol ved s exual act s ; R udow ’ s conducthad a s ig n if ic a n t im p a c t o n th e v ic tim ; a n d R u d o w is th e v ic tim ’s f a th e r. See A p p . a t 1 7 7 -7 8 . T hes e fa ct or s , coupl ed w i th R udow ’ s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t ory , s uppor t ed the D i s tr i ct C o u rt’s c o n c lu sio n th a t th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e w a s “ q u ite re a so n a b le” d e sp ite its p ro x im ity to th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m . Id . at176. I n s um , the r ecor d demonstr at es thatthe D i s tr i ct C our tr ecogni zed, r es ponded t o, and r ej ect ed R udow ’ s ar gum entthatthe ci r cumst ance s of thi s offe ns e w arr ant ed a dow nw ar d var i ance . 1See U

ni t ed Stat es v. O l

f ano , 503 F. 3d 240, 245 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( aff i r m i ng s ent ence d e sp ite c u rso rytre a tm e n t o f se v e ra l ar g u m e n ts b e c a u se “ th e D istric t Ju d g e a p p a re n tly d e ter m in e d th a t [ th e ] d e f e n d a n t' s a rg u m e n ts w e re sim p lyin su f f icie n t to w a rra n t a b elow -G u idelines sen tenc e” af ter co n side ri n g the a p p li ca b le § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors).

7 R udow al s o cl ai m s the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o cons i derhi s ar gum entthatthe appl i cabl e G ui del i ne, § 2G 2. 1, w as notent i t l ed t o anydefe r ence beca us e i thad bee n adopt ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on fori m pr operr eas ons . R el y i ng pr i nci pal l yon K i m br ough v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 85 ( 2007) , R udow cont ends the D i s tr i ctC our tw as r equi r ed t o r es pond t o hi s ar gum entthat§ 2G 2. 1 w as nei thers uppor t ed byempi r i cal evi dence norpr om ul gat ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on aft ercons i der at i on of the compet i ng goal s of s ent enci ng. T h o u g h R u d o w ’s c o u n s e l r a is e d th is a rg u m e n t a t s e n te n c in g , s ee A pp. 168- 70, t he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notexpl i ci t l yaddr es s the i s s ue w hen expl ai ni ng the r at i onal e behi nd R u d o w ’s s e n ten c e . W e h a v e h e ld , h o w e v e r, th a t “ K i m br ough does notr equi r e a di s tr i ct courtt o r ej ecta part i cul arG ui del i nes r ange w her e thatcourtdoes not , i n fac t , have a di s agr eementw i th t he G ui del i ne ati s s ue. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - R eye s , 589 F. 3d 667, 6 7 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). In su c h c irc u m sta n c e s, “ a d istric t co u rt is n o t re q u ire d to e n g a g e in i ndepende ntanal y s i s of the empi r i cal j us t i fi cat i ons and del i ber at i ve undert aki ngs thatl ed t o a part i cul arG ui del i ne. ” Id . H er e, the D i s tr i ctC our teval uat ed the fa ct s of R udow ’ s cas e and f ound the G ui del i nes r ange “ qui t e r eas onabl e” i n l i ghtof the fa ct or s s etfor th i n § 3553( a) . A pp. atN o r d o w e a c c e p t R u d o w ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt ig n o re d h is 2 ar gum entthata dow nw ar d var i ance w as w arr ant ed bec aus e he pos ed a l ow r i s k of r eci di vi s m . C i t i ng R udow ’ s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t ory , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound the “cha nce of

r eci di vi s m i s hi gh” bec aus e “[ n] othi ng, ei theri n t erm s of i ncar cer at i on ordrug tr eatm ent , has s t opped thi s defe ndantovera per i od of hi s 37 pl us y ear s of l i fe. ” A pp. at 17 8. T ho ug h the D i stri ctC ou rtdid not express l ym enti on a st at i st i cal stud yof reci divi sm ra tes b yse x o f

f e n d e rs c ited b yR u d o w , itw a s a w a re o f R u d o w ’s a rg u m e n t an d re jec ted it. 8 1 7 6 . B e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t ap p lica tio n o f § 2 G 2 .1 w a s a p p ro p ria te gi ven the ci r cumst ance s of R udow ’ s cas e, i tw as notobl i gat ed t o eval uat e w hetherthe G ui del i ne pr ovi s i on had bee n pr oper l yadopt ed bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on. L op ezR eye s , 5 8 9 F . 3 d at 67 1 . A cc o rdin g ly , the D istri ct C o u rt ’s fa il u re to a d d ress R u d o w ’s obj ect i ons t o § 2G 2. 1 expl i ci t l ydi d notr enderhi s s ent ence pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e. 2 B. R udow al s o cl ai m s hi s s ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the D is tr ic t C o u rt p la c e d u n d u e e m p h a s is o n a G u id e lin e th a t w a s e n title d to n o d e f e re n c e . C i t i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o acc eptthe G ui del i nes r ange pr ovi ded by§ 2G 2. 1, R udow ar gues thatther e “w as s i m pl yno w aythe [D i s tr i ctC our t ] . . . coul d fi nd the G u id e lin e s ‘r e a so n a b le’ a n d ‘a p p ro p ria te’ w ith o u t f i rst . . . engagi ng i n an ana l y s i s of how th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n c a m e to im p le m e n t th e G u id e lin e in q u e s tio n .” R udow m i s under s t ands the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r at i onal e forr el y i ng on the s ent enci ng ra n g e y ield e d b y§ 2 G 2 .1 . T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t sim p lyd e f e r to § 2 G 2 .1 b e c a u se it r efl ect ed C ongr es s ’ s i nt entt o puni s h chi l d pornogr aphyoffe ns es har s hl y . R ather , the D i s tr i ctC our tacc ept ed the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange be caus e i tacc ur at el yand9

appr opr i at el yacc ount ed forthe § 3553( a) fac t or s r el evantt o R udow ’ s cas e, w hi ch the D is tr ic t C o u rt d is c u s s e d in d e p th . See A pp. at176- 80. B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tgave

“ r a t i o n a l a n d me a n i n g f

u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n [ t o ] th e f a c t o r s e n u me r a t e d i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) [, ] ” Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d a t 5 6 8 , R u d o w ’s 3 2 6 -m o n th se n ten c e w a s s u b sta n tiv e ly r eas onabl e. III . H avi ng found no pr ocedur al ors ubs t ant i ve err or , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s j udgm entof s ent ence .