FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 11, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 37 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 00 78 -J OF-ECS- 1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us RUSSELL E. W ORSHAM, a.k .a. Ru ss el l EdwardW or sh am , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 11 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ru ss el l Wors ha m

ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on an d h is li fe s en te nc e fo r en ti ci ng am in orto en ga ge insex ua l ac ti vi ty in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 22 (b ). He

co nt en ds th at : (1 ) th e p la in lan gu ag e o f § 2 42 2( b) do es no t co ve r th e co nduc t ch arg edinhi s i nd ic tm en t b ecau se no actua l m in orex is te d a nd , inan y ev en t, h e d id no t en ti ce a m in orforsex , on ly the fic ti ti ou s m in or ’s fic ti ti ou s m ot he r; ( 2) th e di st ric t co urt erredby adm it ti ng ev id en ce o f hi s p rio r ba d a ct s; (3) th e ev id en ce pr es en te d a t tria l was in su ffi ci en t t o p ro ve th athe ha d c riminal in te ntor tha t h e to oka subs ta nt ia l s te p t owa rdvi ol at in g § 24 22 (b ); a nd(4) th e d is tri ctco urt erred by sen te nc in g h im

to li fe i n p ris on invi ol at io n o f th e Si xt h a ndEig ht h Am en dm en ts . I. As a p artof t he FBI’s In no cen t Im ag es TaskFo rce, a S an dy Spri ng s Po li ce Dep artm en t d et ect iv e lo gg edon to anin te rn etch atro om dubb ed“ Ped om om s” un de r th e sc reen na m e “ Tiff gu rl0 7.” W or sh am , th en42 y ears ol d, i ni ti at eda pr iv at e ch atwith t he de te ct iv e, who po se d a s a 3 0- y ear- ol d m ot he r na m ed

“ Tiff an y ” fro m

Geor gi a wit h a7-year-o lddaug ht er n am ed“ St ep ha ni e,” o r “ St ep h” fo r sh ort. Wors ha m ’s scr een na m es in cl ud ed“ Dad 4m omng irl ,” “ Hard da d,” an d

“ Dad d.” Inth ei r fi rs t ch at , th e d et ect iv e sa idsh e was no t i nt eres te d i n m enwho were

“ in to fan ta sy.” W or sh am res po nd edth athe want edgi rls who were i nt o “ RL,” o r

2real li fe, an d a sk edfora di nn er d at e wit h “ Tiff an y ” an d h er 7 -y ear- ol d d au gh te r. The de te ct iv e ag reedto a da te , andth enW or sh am wrot e to he r: “ I wou ldlo ve [“ St ep h” ] crawl in g a ll ov er m e b efo re y ouev enge t t o. Wou ldy oube ho t s eei ng he r si tt in g o n my

lap wig gl in g h ug gi ng an d k is si ng ? . . . Wha t wo ul d m ak e y ou ho tt es t, g irl ? Do y outwo pl ay at a ll ? ” The de te ct iv e res po nd edno an d s ai d s he wan te d “ St ep h’s” fir stsex ua l en co un te r to be with am al e. W or sh am rep li ed :

“ Mmm .” He lat er d es cri be d wh athe want ed“ St ep h’s” fir stti m e to in vo lv e in gr ap hi c d et ai l, wh ic h i nc lu de d h er “ m ot he r’s” act iv e p art ic ip at io n. Inth e n ex t ch at , th e d et ect iv e ag ai n s ai d s he di d n otha ve an y in te res t i n

“pr et en de rs ”; W or sh am

reas su redhe r th athe was n oton e. The t wo d is cu ss eda da te an d b rin gi ng alo ng “ St ep h” be fo re l at er ex ch an gi ng e-m ai l ad dr es se s. W or sh am ’s e-m ai ls rep eat edth e sa m e reque stfora da te with t he “ m om ” an d

“ daug ht er” wi th so m e “pl ay ” aft erwar ds . W or sh am als o e -m ai le d t he de te ct iv e a ph ot og rap h o f hi s er ectpe ni s wi th th e m es sa ge : “ Youtwo are al l I c anth in k ab ou t. Whatare you b ot h d oi ng to m orro w? E-m ai l m e b ack , bab y , m ak e su re t o sh ow b ab y , m

m m .” 1 Afte r ab ou t thr ee m on th s o f ch at s an d e -m ai ls , th e two fin al ly pla nn edto

The detect i v e testified at Worsham’s trial that she believed the reque st to “show baby” 1 ref err ed to showingthe photograph of his penis to “Steph.”

3m eetat aMex ic anres taur an t i n S an dy Spri ng s, Geo rg ia . The two the n h adan

ex pl ic iton li ne ch atab ou t the pl an ne d l un ch da te be twee n “ Tiff an y ,” “ St ep h,” an d W or sh am fol lo wedby “pl ay ” aft erwar ds . Thei r co rres po nd en ce g rew m or e ex pl ic itlea di ng up to th e m eet in g d at e as W or sh am de sc rib edth e se xu al act s h e wan te d t o p erfo rm

on“ St ep h” an d h ow h e wou lden ti ce h er t o re ci pr oc at e: by ha vi ng he r actou t s cen es fro m a po rn og rap hi c v id eo he wou ldsh ow h er. Fo r in st an ce, Wors ha m

wrot e: “ I wan t m om

st rad dl in g b ab y ’s face s o t ha t ju ic e drip s in he r li tt le m ou th .” Andhe als o wan te d t o p la y a “ sp an ki ng gam e.” On the da y

of t he pl an ne d m eet in g, Wors ha m dro ve 10 0 m il es fro m

Mac on , Geo rg ia , to San dy Spri ng s. He arr iv edat t he res taur an t atth e ag reedup on ti m e, an d F BI ag en ts arre st edhi m as s oo n a s h e st ep pe d o utof h is va n. In th atva n, the ag en ts fou nda cam era, a s pa nk in g t oo l kno wn as a ri di ng cro p, a p ur pl e h ai rb ru sh , a b ox of c rayons , andso m e CDs . One CD co nt ai ne d c om pu te r-an im at edch il d po rn og rap hy featu rin g g rap hi c im ag es of afathe r rep eat ed ly m ol es ti ng hi s 1 2- y ear- ol d d au gh te r. II. A fed eral grandjury in di ct edW or sh am onon e co un t o f en ti ci ng a m in orto en ga ge inanil le ga l s ex ua l ac t i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 22 (b ). Abo utth ree m on th s b efo re the tri al , W or sh am fil eda m ot io n i n l im in e to ba r an y ev id en ce o f 4hi s p rio r ba d a ct s fr om th e tr ia l. A day

lat er, the go ve rn m en t fi le d ajoi ntm ot io n an d n ot ic e und er Fe de ral Ru le s o f Evi de nc e 4 04 (b ) an d 4 14 of i ts in te ntto in tro du ce fo urfem al e witne ss es who wou ldtes ti fy th atW or sh am

rap edor m ol es te d t he m

be twen 19 99 an d t he m id -2 00 0s whi le th ey were b etweenth e ag es of 8 an d 1 5 years o ld . The n ot ic e d idno t p ro vi de an y furth er d et ai ls , su ch as the witne ss es ’ na m es , th ei r st at em en ts , or s ta te m en t s umm ari es . The di stric t co urt co ns id eredth os e m ot io ns da y s b efo re the tri al . W or sh am arg ue d t ha t the go ve rn m en t d idno t co m pl y with R ul e 4 14 (b )’s no ti ce re qu ire m en ts be cau se itha d n otdi sc lo se d t he witne ss es ’ st at em en ts or s umm ari es of t he ir st at em en ts . The g ov ern m en t o ffer edto co nc ed e to W or sh am hi s ar gu m en t o n R

ul e 41 4 a ndarg ue forth e ad m is si on of t he witne ss es ’ te st im on y so le ly und er Ru le 40 4( b) , whi ch di d n otha ve as d et ai le d n ot ic e requi rem en ts as Rul e 4 14 . The di st ric t co urt o bjec te d t o m erel y ch an gi ng th e n am e o f th e ru le to adm itev id en ce th atwas n otot he rwis e ad mis si bl e. In st ead , th e d is tri ctco urt g av e Worsh am a co up le of d ay s t o d et erm in e if he ne ed eda co nt inua nc e so th athe co ul d re se arch th e wit ne ss es an d t he ir p ro po se d t es ti m on y . At an incam era m eet in g wi th th e d is tri ctjud ge two da y s l at er, Wors ha m ’s co un se l re qu es te d aco nt in ua nc e. W or sh am ’s cou ns el , ho wev er, al so to ldth e jud ge th atth ey

ha d e no ug h i nf

orm at io n t o que st io n o ne of t he fou r wit ne ss es , who

5th ey

arg ue d h ada m ot iv at io n t o l ie to ha rm W or sh am . After t ha t m eet in g, the di st ric t co urt d is m is se d Wors ha m ’s m ot io n i n l im in e as to th aton e wit ne ss , sp eci fic al ly add in g “ itsee m s t o m e th atde fen se co un se l kno ws en ou gh to cro ss ex am in e” h er. At tria l tha t wi tn es s was th e o nl y on e o f th e fo urwom ento tes ti fy ag ai ns t W orhs am . She tes ti fie d t ha t wh il e sh e was be twee n t he ag es of 9 an d 1 2 a ndwhi le sh e an d h er m ot he r li ve d wi th W or sh am , he r ap edan d fo rcedhe r to ha ve ora l s ex with h im at l eas t twice a m on th . The jury als o h eardtes ti m on y

fro m th e San dy Sp rin gs de te ct iv e, FBI a ge nt s, an d Wors ha m hi m se lf. The jury co nv ic te d Wors ha m of v io la ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) . The o ffen se ha s a s ta tu to ry

min im um of 1 20 m on th s i n p ris on an d ast atut ory m ax im um of l ife in pri so n. 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 22 (b ). The p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt reco m m en de d aba se off

en se lev el of 2 8 u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (a)( 3) alo ng with fo urdi ffer en t i nc reas es inth atlev el . The fi rs t was a 2- le ve l i nc reas e u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(3 ) be cau se W or sh am us eda co m

pu te r to en ti ce a m in orto en ga ge inpro hi bi te d s ex ua l co nduc t. The sec on d was an8-l ev el in crea se be cau se hi s co nv ic ti on un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) in vo lv eda m in orwho ha d n otatt ai ne d

6th e ag e o f 12 y ears . See U.S.S.G. § 2 G1.3 (b )(5 ). The thi rdwas a2-l ev el in crea se 2 un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 C1 .1 fo r ob st ru ct io n o f jus ti ce b ecau se W or sh am ha d g iv en m at eri al ly fals e te st im on y at t ria l. The fou rth off

en se lev el in crea se th atth e PSR reco m m en de d was a 5- le ve l in crea se un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 B1 .5(b )(1 ) be cau se W or sh am ha d b een co nv ic te d o f a se x c rime andha d apa tt ernof a ct iv it y in vo lv in g p ro hi bi te d s ex ua l co nduc t. The factua l b as is forth is pa tt ern -o f-ac ti vi ty inc reas e was th e st at em en ts of t hr ee o f th e fo urwom enwho sai d tha t the y ha d b een rap edor o th erwi se sex ua ll y m ol es te d b y W or sh am whi le th ey

were m in or s; on e o f th os e th ree h adtes ti fie d a t tria l. The PSR d et ai le d t he FBI’s i nv es ti ga ti on in to th os e wom en ’s cla im s. With all fou r in crea se s co un te d, Wors ha m ’s to ta l o ffen se lev el was 4 5. Whenco m bi ne d wi th hi s cr im in al hi st ory

cat eg ory of I , th e res ul t was a reco m m en de d g ui de li ne s se nt en ce o f li fe i n p ris on . At s en te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt ad op te d t he PSR’s re co m m en da ti on s an d se nt en cedW or sh am

to li fe i n p ris on . This is hi s ap pe al .

III.

The corr esponding guidelines commentar y define s “minor” as “an individual, whether 2 fictitious or not, who a law e nforc ement off icer repr esente d to a participa nt [ ] had not attained the ag e of 18 year s, and [] could be provided for the purposes of eng ag ing in sexually expli cit conduct.” U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3, comment. (n.1). 7W or sh am ’s con te nd s t ha t i t i s fa ctua ll y im po ss ib le forhi m

to ha ve vi ol at ed 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) be cau se he co rres po nd edno t wi thanactua l m in orbu t wi th an un de rco ve r de te ct iv e. Thatco nt en ti on is for ecl os edby our pre ced en t. See Uni te d St at es v. Lan zo n, 6 39 F.3d12 93 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (“ [A]n actua l m in orvi ct im is no t re qu ire d fo r anatt em ptco nv ic ti on un de r § 2 42 2( b) . A defe nd an t ca n b e co nv ic te d u nd er thi s s ect io n wh enhe arran ge s t o h av e se x wi th a m in or or a supp os edm in orth ro ug h c omm un ic at io ns with a n a du ltin te rm ed ia ry .” (ci ta ti on an d quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ). IV. W or sh am co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredun de r Ru le 40 4( b) by al lo win g h is form er rape vi ct im to tes ti fy at t ria l, b uthe do es no t ar gu e th atth e ev id en ce was no t ad m is si bl e und er Ru le 41 4. Th atrul e st at es : “ Ina cri m in al cas e in whi cha de fen da ntis accu se d o f ch il d m ol es ta ti on , th e co urt m ay adm it ev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntco m m it te d a ny oth er ch il d m ol es ta ti on . The ev id en ce m ay be co ns id eredonan y

m atte r to whi ch itis rel ev an t.” Fe d. R. Ev id . 41 4( a); se e al so Fed . R. Evi d. 4 14 (d )(2 )(A), (F) (de fin in g “ ch il d m ol es ta ti on ” as an

“ at te m ptto en ga ge inco nduc t” invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) ).

“ [A] party

see ki ng to rai se a cl ai m

or i ss ue on ap pe al m

us t p la in ly and pr om in en tl y

so in di cat e. Oth erwi se , th e is su e—e ve n i f pr op erl y pre se rv edat 8tri al —wi ll be co ns id eredab an do ne d.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jerni gan, 3 41 F.3d12 73 ,

12 83 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). W or sh am ha s ab an do ne d a ny argu m en t tha t the rap e vi ct im ’s tes ti m on y

was n otadm is si bl e u nd er Ru le 41 4 b y no t p la in ly and pr om in en tl y

rai si ng th atis su e o n app eal . 3 V. W or sh am als o c on te nd s t ha t the tri al ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s ho w th at he eit he r ha d t he in te ntto vi ol at e 1 8 U.S.C. § 24 22 (b ) orto oka subs ta nt ia l s te p t o do so . “ W e rev ie w de n ov o wh ethe r su ffi ci en t ev id en ce s up po rts a co nv ic ti on , res ol vi ng all reas on ab le in fere nc es infav orof t he ve rd ic t.” Un it edSta te s v . Farl ey , 60 7 F .3d12 94 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). “ Inrev ie win g e vi de nt ia ry su ffi ci en cy , we m

us t d et erm in e whe th er the ev id en ce, co ns tru edinth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e g ov ern m en t, wo ul d p erm itth e tr ie r of factto fin d t he de fen da nt gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . “ To co nv ic t [Wors ham ] un de r § 2 42 2( b) foratt em pt in g t o e nt ic e a m in orforsex ua l ac ti vi ty, th e g ov ern m en t n eed edto pro ve (1) th at[W or sh am ] act edwith t he ki ndof Worsham does argue, in a footnote, that the only basis for the district court’s admission of 3 his prior b ad ac t s was Rule 404(b). He say s that the g overnme nt dropped its Rule 414 argument befor e tr i al wh en the dispute about sufficie nt notice arose . The rec ord shows, howeve r, that the district court refused to acc ept the g overnme nt’s proposed concession on Rule 414. And t hen the court denied Worsham’s motion to exclude on Rule 414 n o t i ce grounds t he testi mony of the only one of those four women who t ook the s tand aga inst W orsham at tria l. The cour t rea soned that he would not be prejudiced by the failure t o g ive better notice, and Worsham ha s not challeng ed that rulingbefor e this Court. 9cu lp ab il it y

requi redforth e cri m e h e was ch arg edwith a tt em pt in g, an d (2 ) th athe en ga ge d i n c on du ctco ns ti tu ti ng a subs ta nt ia l s te p t owa rdit s co m m is si on .” Id . A per so n c on vi ct edun de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) m us t “ kn owi ng ly pers ua de [], in du ce[], ent ic e[], or co erce []” a m in or “ to en ga ge in. . . an y

[il le ga l] sex ua l act iv ity .” 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) (em ph as is ad de d) ; s ee al so Ga. Cod e Ann . § 1 6- 6- 4( a) (c riminal iz in g t he sex ua l m ol es ta ti on of m in or s youn ge r th an16 y ears ol d) . InFarl ey , th e d efen da ntin st ru ct edanFBI ag en t, p os in g a s t he m ot he r of an11 - y ear- ol d g irl , to sh ow h er p rep ub es cen t d au gh te r po rn og rap hi c m at eri al s, t each he r to m as tu rb at e, an d t ou ch he r se xu al ly. 60 7 F .3dat 1 30 2. He al so de sc rib edin de ta il th e way

he pl an ne d t o m ol es t the daug ht er an d s en t a p ho to gr ap h o f hi s pe ni s fo r th e d au gh te r’s vi ewin g. Id . at 1 30 4, 1 30 6. Th enhe fle w fro m Dall as to Atl an tato m eetth e g irl . Id. at13 06 . W e co nc lu de d t ho se fact s wer e su ffi ci en t t o es tabl is h F arl ey ’s cri m in al in te ntun de r § 2 42 2( b) . Id. at13 33 –3 4. The fact s i n t hi s ca se are s tri ki ng ly, an d a la rm in gl y , si m il ar. W or sh am ch at te d wi th anFBI ag en t p ret en di ng to be th e m ot he r of a 7- y ear- ol d g irl . He de sc rib edinlu ridde ta il th e se xu al act s h e wou ldpe rfo rm on th e g irl an d h ow h e wou lden ti ce h er t o d o t he m . He als o s po ke of p la y in g a“ sp an ki ng ga m e” wi th th e gi rl a ndsen t a g rap hi c p ho to gr ap h o f hi s p en is forhe r to see . After r ep eat ed ly de nyin g t ha t h e was m erel y fan ta si zi ng , W or sh am

pro ve d t ha t, i nd eed , he was no t 10by dri vi ng 10 0 m il es to m eetth e m ot he r an d d au gh te r. FBI ag en ts fou ndinhi s

va n arid in g c ro p a ndco m pu te r-an im at edch il d p orno gr ap hy. All of t ha t ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o s ho w W or sh am ha d t he ne ces sa ry

cri m in al in te ntun de r § 2 42 2( b) . Lan zo n i s i ns tru ct iv e ab ou t wh ethe r W or sh am to oka subs ta nt ia l s te p i n co m m it ti ng th is cri m e. InLanz on , we con cl ud edth atth e d efen da ntha d t ak ena subs ta nt ia l s te p t owa rdvi ol at in g § 24 22 (b ) whe n h e: (i) e ng ag edinsex ua ll y ex pl ic itch at s ab ou t a 1 4- y ear- ol d g irl with am anhe be li ev edto be he r m ot he r’s li ve -in bo y fri en d; (ii ) arra ng edto m eetth em forsex ; an d (i ii ) dr ov e se ve ral m il es to th e m eet in g p la ce. 6 39 F.3dat 1 29 9. Th e m in orinth atcas e was als o fi ct io na l. Id . Virtua ll y

th e sa m e fac ts are p res en t h ere, an d t he ev id en ce i s s uf fic ie nthe re as well . VI. Fi na ll y , W or sh am

co nt en ds th athi s l ife sen te nc e was un co ns ti tu ti on al un de r th e Si xt h a ndEig ht h Am en dm en ts . W e rev ie w de no vo co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es to a se nt en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Chau, 4 26 F.3d13 18 , 13 21 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). A. W or sh am arg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt i m pe rm is si bl y

in crea se d h is sen te nc e, in vi ol at io n o f th e Si xt h Am en dm en t, b y us in g e vi de nc e th atth e jury didno t 11co ns id er wh enm ak in g i ts gu il t d et erm in at io n. Th atev id en ce i nc lu de d the rap e

an d m ol es ta ti on accu sa ti on s co nt ai ne d i n t he PSR fr om two wom enwho di d n ot te st ify at th e tr ia l. (As we ha ve m en ti on ed , a th irdwom andi d t es ti fy to si m il ar fact s i nv ol vi ng W or sh am ’s rap e an d m ol es ta ti on of h er.) On ce ag ai n, Wors ha m ’s arg um en ts are fo recl os edby prece de nt : W e h av e al so he ldth ata di st ric t co urt m ay m ak e ad di ti on al factua l fin di ng s u nd er a p rep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce s ta nd ard , th atgo be y on d th e fac ts fou ndby the jury, so lo ng as t he co urt re co gn iz es th e Gui de li ne s are a dv is ory . And , we hav e h el d t ha t a d is tri ctco urt m ay en ha nc e a se nt en ce b as edup on jud ic ia l fa ct -fi nd in g p ro vi de d t ha t i ts fin di ng s d o no t i nc reas e th e se nt en ce b ey on d t he st atut ory m ax im um au th or iz edby fact s d et erm in edina gu il ty ple a o r jury verd ic t. Uni te d S ta te s v . Dean , 48 7 F .3d84 0, 8 54 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d; em ph as is ad de d) . The st atut ory

m ax im um for W or sh am ’s con vi ct io n u nd er 1 8 U.S.C § 2 42 2( b) is li fe i n p ris on . The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edhi m to li fe i n p ris on . The co urt d idno t v io la te hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh ts . B. W or sh am arg ue s fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal th athi s l ife sen te nc e v io la te s th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. “ A sen te nc e o nl y vi ol at es th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t i f itis gr os sl y di sp ro po rti on at e to th e o ffen se .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Flo res , 57 2 F .3d12 54 , 12 68 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o mit te d) . “ Inno n- cap it al cas es , th e Eig ht h 12Am en dm en t en co m pa ss es , at m os t, o nl y

a na rro w pro po rti on al it y pri nc ip le . Gen eral ly, whe n asen te nc e is withi n the li m it s i m po se d b y st atut e, itis ne it he r ex ces si ve no r cru el .” Id. (c it at io n a ndqu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Mor eo ve r, whe n a p arty rai se s an arg um en t fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n app eal , we rev ie w for pl ai n e rro r on ly the di stric t co urt’s d eci si on . Uni te d S ta te s v . McGari ty, 66 9 F .3d12 18 , 12 57 n.5 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 2) . “ It i s t he law o f th is cir cu itth at , at l eas t wh ere t he ex pl ic it la ng ua ge of ast atut e o r ru le do es no t s pe ci fic al ly reso lv e anis su e, th ere c anbe no pl ai n e rro r whe re the re i s n o p rece de ntfro m th e Supr em e Co urt o r th is Co urt di rect ly reso lv in g i t.” Un it edSta te s v . Lejarde -Rad a, 31 9 F .3d12 88 , 12 91 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ). W or sh am ’s li fe s en te nc e was withi n t he li mit s o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 42 2( b) . And he po in ts to no pre ced en t s ho win g t he di stric t co urt’s s en te nc in g d et erm in at io n was pl ai nl y

erro ne ou s. AFFIRMED.

13