NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0792n.06 No. 09-3474 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, Plaintif f-Appellee , v. ALLEN L. KEEFER, Defendant-

Appellant
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R

TH E N OR TH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: KENN EDY, COLE, an d ROGERS , Ci r c uit Judg e s. CO L E , Circuit Judge. D e f e n d an t- Ap p e ll an t A ll e nL
. K e e f e r p le d g u il ty to o n e c o u n t of distributing visual depict ions of a minor eng ag ed in sexually expli cit conduct in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 2 25 2( a )( 2) , o ne c ount o f d ist ri buti ngc hil d p or

no g ra phy in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 2 25 2A (a )( 2) (A ), and

on e c ount o f p os sessio n o f c hil d p or no g ra phy un de r 1 8 U .S. C. § 2252A(a )(5) (B ). Ke efe r ar g ues t hat hi s within-Guidelines s entenc e is unrea sonable be cause : (1) the district court e rre d in applying a fi ve-le vel enha

nceme nt for an of

fense involving 600 or more ima g e s; ( 2) the dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to c on sid e r t

he ne e d to avo id u

nw arr ante d s e nte nc ingdis pa ri tie s; (3 ) t he se nte nc e wa s g re a te r t

ha n n e c e ssa ry to c omp ly wi th the 18 U. S.C. § 355 3( a ) f a c tor s b e c a

us e the district court fa iled to meaning fully consider rele vant fac tors; a nd (4) the se ntence itself cre ated
an unwa rra nted sentenc e disparity . Be cause we f ind the district court er

roneously applied the f

ive-No. 09-3474

United States of America v . Allen L. Keefer

- 2 - level enha

nceme nt for an of

fense involving 600 or more imag es, we VA CA TE Kee fer ’s sentenc e and REMAND t o t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo r r es en t en ci n g. I. On Octobe r 12, 2007, Ke efe r eng ag ed in rea l-time elec tronic communication on the internet with a detec tive o f t he Miami Be ach Police D epar tment posing a s a mother of a ten- y ear -old g irl from Miami, Florida
. The c onversation beg an whe n Kee fer enter ed an inter

net chatroom and sent
a pu bli c me ssa g e statin g he “wan t[ e d to ] ch a t w ithREA LF EM AL E a bo ut e njo yingy oungg ir ls toge ther.” (Prese ntence I nvestig ation Report (“ PSR ”) 4.) I n re s p o n s e to this public messag e, the de te c tiv e se nt K e e fe r a

pr ivate me ssa g e , a

nd the y be g an to chat via pr ivate me ssa g e s. Duri ngthi s
conver sation and later

that day , Kee fer elec tronically sent thirty -one imag es to the detec tive, which depicted a dult males eng ag ed in inter course with prepube scent fe males and pr epubesc ent fe males exposi ng their g enitals. On J anuar

y 22, 2008, fede ral ag ents executed a sear ch war rant at Keef

er’ s home and seized three computers, c ompact discs, and a digital c amer a. A fo rensic a naly sis of Kee fer ’s computer
reve aled thirty -nine imag es of ch i l d p ornog raphy saved on the computer’ s hard dr ive, and a n additional 1,215 imag es in the computer ’s “una llocated spa ce.” T h e U n it e d St a te s Pr o b a ti o n O f f ic e c o mp le te d a PS R o n K e e f e r . T h e PSR calc ulated Kee fer ’s b as e o ff

ense le vel as twe nty -two and the n rec ommended application of the following enhanc ements: (1) two le vels bec ause the imag es contained prepube scent mi nors or a minor under the age o f twelve under the United States SentencingGuidelines Manua l (“U.S.S.G.” or “Guidelines” ) § 2G2.2(b) (2) ( 2008); (2) f ive levels because Kee fer distributed child pornog raphy forNo. 09-3474

United States of America v . Allen L. Keefer

- 3 - rec eipt, or expectation of r ece ipt, of a thing o f value, but not for pe cuniar y g ain, under

U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)( 3)(B ) (2008) ; (3) f our leve ls beca

use at lea st one of the imag es portra y ed sadistic or masochistic conduc t under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b) (4) ( 2008); (4 ) two levels bec ause K eef er use d a computer f

o r t h e tra nsmissi on, rec eipt, or distribution of the child pornog raphy under U .S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)( 6) (2008) ; and (5) f ive levels be cause the offe nse invo l v ed 600 or more imag es under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7) (D) ( 2008). The PSR thus c alculate d an adjusted off ense le vel of for

ty , but the n r e du c e d it by thr e e le ve ls f or Ke e fe r’ s a c c e pta

nc e of re sp on sib ili ty , r e su lti ngin a tot a l of fe ns e level of thirty -seve n. Kee fer had no prior c riminal convictions and fe ll within c ri m i nal history cate g ory I
. Kee fer filed a r es p o n s e to the PSR , and, in re levant par t, objected to the f

ive-leve l enhanc ement under § 2G2.2(b)( 7)(D) for an offe nse involving 600 or more imag es. Afte r hea ring arguments on this objection at sentencing , the di strict court applied this enhanc ement, as w ell as the
o t h e r e n h an c e m e n t s s u g g e s t e d b y t h e P S R , an d c a l c u l a t e d K e e f e r ’ s t o t a l o f

f e n s e l e v e l t o b e t h i rtyseven w ith a criminal history cate g ory I , resulting in a Guidelines rang e of 210-262 months, with a statutory minimum of f

i v e y ea rs and a

maxi mum of twenty

y ear s for c ounts one and two, a nd a statutory maxi mum of ten y ear s for count three . The district cour t sentence d Kee fer

to 210 months of imprisonme n t on the first two counts and 120 months of imprisonment on count three , to run
concur rently ; the d istrict court also imposed a life time term of super vised rele ase. This a

ppeal followed.No. 09-3474

United States of America v . Allen L. Keefer

- 4 - II. We reviewa def

endant’ s sentence for r eas o n ab l en es s , and we do so under “ ‘a de fer ential abuse- of-discr etion standard.’ ” United States v. Lapsins , 570 F.3d 758, 772 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v . United States , 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007))
. This inquiry has bot h a procedura l and a substantive component. Id. (citing Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51). When determining the proc edura l rea sonablene ss of a def endant’ s sentence , we must “ ensure that the district c ourt committed no significa nt proce dural
err or, suc h as fa iling to ca lculate ( or improper ly calc ulating) the Guidelines ra ng e, tre ating the Guidelines as mandatory , failingto consider the § 3553( a) f actor s, selectinga sen t en ce based on clea rly err oneous fa cts, or fa iling to ade quately explain the chosen sentenc e.” United States v. Martinez , 5 8 8 F
. 3 d

3 0 1 , 3 2 4 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( inte r

n a l q u o tati o nma

r k s an d c it a ti o no mi tt e d )
. “ We revie w the district c ourt’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its findings of fac t
a t s e n te n c in g f

o r c le ar e r

ror.” L a p s ins , 5 70 F .3 d at 77 2. “ A [d istri c t c ourt ’s ] fi nd ingis c le arl y
err oneous whe re, a lthough ther e is evidenc e to support it, the revie wing court is left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been c ommitt ed.” United States v. W ebb , 616 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2010) (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted). The applicability of sentenc ing enhanc ements under t h e Gu i d eli nes must be prove n by a pre pondera

nce of evidenc e. See U

nited States v. Mick

ens , 453 F.3d 668, 673 ( 6th Cir. 2006). There fore , the di strict court’s a pplication of the five- level enha

nceme nt was prope r if it was supported by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e. See Un ite d S tates v . B ro wn , 579 F.3d 672, 685 ( 6th Cir. 2009). Section 2G2.2, the Guideline reg arding distribution and possession of m ater ial involving the
s e x u a l e x p l o i t a t i o no f

m i n o r s , s t a t e s : “ [ i ] f th e o f f e n s e i n v o l v e d

6 0 0 o r m o r e i m a g e s , i n c r e a s e b y 5No. 09-3474

United States of America v . Allen L. Keefer

- 5 - levels.” U .S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)( D) (2008) . Kee fer argue s that applying this enha nceme nt was i mp ro p er b ec au s e h e o n l y

h adt h i rt y -n i n e i m age s o n h i s co mp u t er ’s h ar d dri v e an d h ad n o kn o wl ed ge of the pre sence of the other 1,215 imag es found in his computer’ s unallocate d space
. Wit h reg ard to the a

pplication of the five -leve l enh ance ment for the imag es found in the computer’ s unallocate d space , the PSRexplained: Acc ording to http:/ /www.for ensics-intl.com/def8.html re trieved on Ma rch 19, 2009, “When files ar e erased or delete d in DOS or Windows operating sy stems, the content of the file is not actually

era sed. Until file deletion softwa re is used, data from the ‘er ased f ile’ re mains behind in an area c alled unallocated storag e spac e . . . Unallocated file spac e potent ially contains intact files, r emnants of f iles and s u b d i r e c t o r i e s an d

t e mp o r ar y f i l e s w h i c hw e r e tr an s p ar e n t l y create d and deleted by computer applications and also the operating system
. Some examples are the use r has an imag e file a

nd deletes the file. The f

ile is now part of ‘ unallocate d file spac e’ and will rema in there until it is overwritten. Another ex ample is the us er ope ns an application and a temporary file i s cre ated, which rema ins in unallocated file spa ce. Wit h imag e files, they had to havebeen pre sent , eit her saved and the n era sed or viewed, to be prese nt in unallocated f ile space .” (PSR 21 (empha sis a dded).) The PSR further explained that spe cific of fe n s e chara cter istics enhanc ements ar e dete rmined by consideration of all releva nt conduct as descr ibed under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. A t the sentenc ing he aring , the g overnme nt informed the district cour t that “at lea st seven of the ima g e s th a t we re fo un d in u na llo c a te d s pa c e we re the same ima g e s th a t [Ke e fe r] h a d s e nt t o the ag ent, the dete ctive in Flor ida, so clea rly those imag es in una llocated space wer e imag es that Mr. Kee fer has poss essed, dist ributed or at least viewe d.” (Sente ncingHr’gTr., Dist. Ct. Docket No. 19, at 11.) Af

ter he aringboth parties’ a rguments on this is sue, the district cour t concluded: [O]ne of the thi ng s th a t dr ov e me on thi s o ne wa s th e fa c t th a t a c tua lly so me of the se imag es we re a ctua l ly

transmitted to the office r in Miami and then we re later, I believe, when the c omputer wa s appre hended, e ven if that didn’t happen, I think that under the law, the f

ive-leve l enhanc ement is appropr iate.No. 09-3474

United States of America v . Allen L. Keefer

- 6 -

So tho se ob

je c tio ns wi ll b e ov e rr

ule d f or the re a so ns se t f

or th i n th e [PSR] and [the g overnme nt’s ] re sponse and will be incor porate d in my

decision on the overr uling of the objection. ( Id. at 13.) Th e e nh anc e me nt h e re wa s p ro pe rl y a pp lie d if the of fe ns e , in c lud ing

a ll r e le va nt c on du c t,
see U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 (2008) , involved 6 0 0 o r m ore imag es. U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)( 7)(D) (2008). A d istri c t c ourt

c ann ot c on sid e r c on du c t a s “ re le va nt c on du c t” in i ts s e nte nc ingc a lc ulatio n “ un le ss the conduc t at issue amounts to an offen s e for whic h a cr iminal defenda nt could potentially

be in c ar c era ted.” United States v. Shafer , 199 F.3d 826, 830- 31 (6th Cir. 1999) (interpr eting § 1 B 1
. 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) )
. T h e r e f

o r e , t o a p p l y t h e e n h an c e m e n t h e r e , t h e g o v e r n m e n tm u s th av e s h o w nb y a preponde ranc e of e vidence that at s ome poi nt Kee fer knowing ly possessed or knowingly acc essed with intent to view eac h of the 600 or mor e imag es. See18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)( 5)(B ). We cre dit the district court’s findingthat “some of the imag es that we re f ound in the unallocate d space wer e imag es that had pr eviously been se nt to the detec tive in Florida,” (Sentenc ing Hr’gTr., Dist. Ct. Docket No. 19, at 13), becau se it is not clearly err oneous. See W

ebb , 616 F.3d at 609. B ut the fac t that at one point Kee fer knowing ly

possessed seve n of the 1,215 i m ag es (the
on e s h e se nt t o th e de te c tiv e in F lor ida ) is no t a de qu ate to su pp or t a fi nd ingthat he e ve r k

no wi ng ly possessed or know ingly acc essed with intent to view the other 1,208 imag es, or e ven an a dditional 554 of them—the amount neede d to a pply the enha

nceme nt after

subtracting

the seve n imag es sent to the detec tive and the thirt y -n i n e i m ag es found on the c omputer’s ha rd drive. T he PSR’s explanation of unallocate d space mere ly s t at ed t h at i mag es ar e stored in una llocated spa ce if they
wer e present

on a computer at some point. Presenc e, howe ver, doe s not inherently require knowingNo. 09-3474

United States of America v . Allen L. Keefer

“A ‘ pop-up’ is an unsolicited a dvertisement that wi l l appea r in a window that ‘pops up’ 1 unwanted in the use r’s we b browser .” Un i ted States v. Romm , 455 F.3d 990, 1000 n.14 ( 9th Cir. 2006). - 7 - possession or acce s s , as any one who ha s rec eived spam email or visited one we bsite only to have another , inadver

tently acc essed, we bsite pop-up knows all too w ell. And the g overnme nt has failed 1 to present e vidence indicating any thing to the c ontrary
. Wit hout more, the e nhance ment’s
a pp lic a tio n was im pro per. We n ote , a s a n a sid e , th a t th e “ e vid e nc e ” re lie d o n b y the PSR o n th is highly technica l and important issue was a n unverifie d, unexplained website def inition. For the purpose of

re- sentenc ing, it would see m advisable for the di strict court to re quire “ evidenc e” mor e reliable than such a

website re fer ence , whether such evide nce c ome from a wit n ess wit h the
a p p r o p r i a t e e x p e rt i s e o r

s o m e o t h e r

r e l i a b l e a u th o r i ty. I n sum, the di s t ri ct co u rt erro n eo u s l y ap p l i edth e e n h an ce m en tan d thu s i mp ro perly

calc ulated Kee fer ’s Guidelines ra

ng e. See M

artinez , 5 8 8 F. 3 d

at 3 2 4
. Be cau s e w e r em an d fo r r es en t en ci n g,
we need not r eac h Kee fer ’s other a rguments that his sentence was unre asonable
. See United States v. Garc ia-Robles , 562 F.3d 763, 768 ( 6th Cir. 2009). III . For the re asons above , we VA CA TE Kee fer ’s sentenc e as p rocedurally unrea sonable a

nd REMAND for r esente ncing
.