NOT 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- 3273 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. LO W ELL E. M CM I CK EN S, A ppel l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C r i m . N o. 08- cr - 00366- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e C hr i s t opherC . C onner Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 8, 2010 B efor e: M cK E E , B A R R Y and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: A pr i l 12, 2010)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge L ow el l E . M cM i ckens appea l s the s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our taft er M c M ick e n s p led g u iltyto th e re c e ip t o f c h ildp o rn o g ra p h y . M c M ick e n s c laim s th a t h is2

se n ten c e sh o u ld b e v a c a ted b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t ad e q u a telyre sp o n d to h is argum ent that the ap pli cable s ect i on of the U . S . S entenci ng G uidel i nes (“the G uidel i nes” o r “ U .S .S .G .” ) s h o u ld b e a c c o rd e d littl e d e f e re n c e . W e w ill a f

f ir m . FACTS O n February20, 2009, M cM i ckens pl ed gui l tyt o a one- counti nform at i on char gi ng hi m w i th the r ece i ptof m or e than 600 i m ages of chi l d pornogr aphy , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2252A ( a) ( 2) ( A ) & ( B ) . T he i m ages w er e found on hi s per s onal comput er s and s t or age de vi ces aft erl aw enfor cementoffi ci al s exec ut ed a s ear ch w arr antof M cM i ckens ’ s hous e on Sept ember19, 2008. T he s ear ch al s o uncover ed i m ages of a y o u n g g ir l i n h er u n d erw ea r th at w ere stored o n a d igit al ca m era . T h e p rese n tenc e re p o rt ( “PSR ”) cal cul at ed a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 30 and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof I . T he G u id e lin e s ra n g e w a s 9 7 to 1 2 1 m o n th s . I n hi s s ent enci ng m emora ndum , M cM i ckens ar gued, among ot herthi ngs , that U . S. S. G . § 2G 2. 2 r epr es ent s congr es s i onal m andat es and “doe s notexempl i fythe S en tenc ing C o m m issi o n ’s ex erc ise o f it s ch ara cterist ic i n sti tuti o n al role.” (A p p . at 46 . ) A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng hel d on J ul y21, 2009, M cM i ckens ’ s att orneyr epr i s ed thi s and o th e r o f h is a rg u m e n ts . ( See, e. g. , i d. at67- 68 ( “[T] he gui del i ne i s one thats houl d be a c c o rd e d les s d e f

e re n c e b e c a u se it h a s d e v e lo p e d in a w a yth a t w a s n o t co n sis ten t w ith the w ayi n w hich the sentenci ng gu i deli ne [si c] w as suppo sed t o p rom ulgat e t hese gui del i nes bas ed on empi r i cal anal y s i s , s tudi es of pas tcas es , butm er el yas a r es ul tof3

congr es s i onal l ydi r ect ed amendm ent s . . . . ”) . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed thati t“w i l l not pr es um e thatthe gui del i ne r ange i s r eas onabl e . . . [butr ather ] w i l l m ake a n i ndi vi dual i zed a s s es s m entbas ed on the fa ct s pr es ent ed. ” (I d. a t 6 4 .) T he D i s tr i ctC our ti m pos ed a s ent ence of 109 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . I tthen d iscu ssed the 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 3 5 3 (a) fa ctors a s the yap p li ed to M cM icke n s’s ca se. It r ecount ed the eve nt s thatl ed t o M cM i ckens ’ s arr es t , i ncl udi ng the di s coveryof over 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 i ma g e s a n d 4 4 0 0 mo v i e f i l e s o f c h i l d p o rn o g r a p h yo n h i s f o u rc o mp u t e r s a n d t wo ext ernal har d dr i ves , as w el l as i m ages on hi s di gi t al camer a of a y oung gi r l i n her underw ear , pos ed i nappr opr i at el y . W i th r es pectt o the l att er , the C our tnot ed that M cM i ckens “w as s t andi ng atthe pr eci pi ce of m ol es t ful conduct . ” (I d. at 79 . ) T h e C o u rt c o n sid e re d M c M ick e n s’s “ p o sitiv e u p b rin g in g ,” a s w e ll as h is lo n g stru g g le w ith c h ild pornogr aphyand a c r i m i nal hi s t orythats ugges t ed a “ pot ent i al t o r e- offe nd. ” (Id . at77- 7 8 .) T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e p ro lif e ra tio n o f

c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yis a n “ e v il a c t . . . demand[i ng] a l engthyt erm of i ncar cer at i on. ” (I d. at 79 . ) J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW W e have j ur i s di ct i on overthi s appea l pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e r evi ew th e s u b s ta n c e o f

M c M ic k e n s ’s s e n te n c e f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Thi el em ann , 5 7 5 F .3 d 2 6 5 , 2 7 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ); U nited S tates v. W

ise , 515 F. 3d 207, 218 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . O url evel of def er ence “w i l l depend on the type of pr ocedur al err or as s ert ed on appe al . ” W ise , 5 1 5 F .3 d a t 2 1 7 .4 DI S CU S S I ON T he s ol e ar gum enton appea l i s thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notr ecogni ze a nd m e a n in g f

u llyre sp o n d to M c M ick e n s’s a ss e rtio n th a t U .S .S .G . § 2 G 2 .2 is in h e re n tly fl aw ed and r ecomm ends a s ent ence thati s gr eat erthan nec es s aryt o achi eve the goal s of s ent enci ng i n hi s cas e. H e mai nt ai ns thati t s fai l ur e t o do s o amount ed t o a s i gni fi cant p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r n e c e s s ita tin g th a t w e v a c a te h is s e n te n c e a n d re m a n d f o r r e -s e n te n c in g . Sent enci ng court s m us tengage i n a thr ee- s t ep ana l y s i s t o det erm i ne the a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e to im p o s e o n a d e f e n d a n t. U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 562 F. 3d 558, 577 n. 16 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( en banc ) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) . T he part i es agr ee thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tacc ur at el ycal cul at ed the G ui del i ne r ange a nd thatthe s econd s t ep i n t he ana l y s i s – i . e. , departur e mot i ons – i s noti m pl i cat ed her e. T he foc us i s on t he fi nal s t ep, w her e a c our ti s “r equi r ed t o ‘ exer ci s e [i t s ] di s cr et i on bycon si deri ng the rel evan t§ 3 55 3(a) fact ors’ i n set t i ng the sentence [it ] i m po se[s] r egar dl es s of w hetheri tvar i es fr om the s ent ence cal cul at ed underthe G ui del i nes . ” Id . It i s her e thatM cM i ckens ’ s al l eges the C our tfai l ed t o cons i derhi s ar gum ent s conce rni ng the fl aw s i n U . S. S. G . § 2G 2. 2. Sent enci ng court s m us tgi ve “meani ngful cons i der at i on t o al l of the s ent enci ng fac t or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , ” U ni t ed Stat es v. O lhovs ky , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 3 0 , 5 4 6 (3d C ir . 2009) ( quot at i ons and ci t at i on om i t t ed) , and “the r ecor d m us ts how a true, cons i der ed exer ci s e of di s cr et i on on the partof a di s tr i ctcourt , i ncl udi ng a r ecogni t i on of, and5

r es pons e t o, the part i es ’ non- fr i vol ous ar gum ent s , ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack

s on , 467 F. 3d 834, 841 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . W hen a de fenda ntchal l enges one of the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes on pol i cygr ounds , the di s tr i ctcourti s notr equi r ed “t o r ej ecta part i cul arG ui del i nes r ange w her e thatcourtdoes not , i n fac t , have di s agr eementw i th the G ui del i ne ati s s ue. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - R eye s , 5 8 9 F . 3 d 6 6 7 , 6 7 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). O f c o u rse, th e d istri ct co u rt m u s t s e t o u t its ra tio n a le f o r i m p o s in g a p a rt ic u la r s e n te n c e to f a c ilita te a p p e lla te re v ie w . “M er el yr eci t i ng the § 3553( a) fac t or s , s ay i ng thatcouns el ’ s ar gum ent s have be en cons i der ed, and then dec l ar i ng a s ent ence , ar e i ns uffi ci entt o w i ths t and our r eas onabl enes s r evi ew . ” Jack s on , 4 6 7 F .3 d a t 8 4 2 ; se e U n itedS ta tes v . Se v illa , 541 F. 3d 2 2 6 , 2 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt’s tre a tm e n t o f M c M ick e n s’s se n ten c e w a s h a rd lya ro te sta tem e n t ac k n o w led g in g h is a rg u m e n ts a n d re c iti n g th e § 3 3 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs. R a th e r, it demonstr at ed a thought ful appl i cat i on of the § 3353( a) fac t or s t o M cM i ckens ’ s cas e and w as a p rod u ct of

the C o u rt ’s view o f th e se ri o u sn ess o f th e c o n d u ct i n v o lved . T h e C o u rt cons i der ed the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e, the quant i tyof the i l l egal m at er i al d isc o v e re d , M c M ick e n s’s u p b rin g in g , h is a d m itt e d in ter e st in c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y , h is c ri m in a l h is to ry, a n d h is p o s s e s s io n o f a d ig ita l c a m e ra w ith le w d im a g e s s to re d o n it. A l though t he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notexpl i ci t l yr efe r ence M cM i ckens ’ s pol i cy chal l enge, i t s comm ent s ats ent enci ng s truck atthe hea r tof M cM i ckens ’ s cont ent i ons t hat § 2G 2. 2 r es ul t s fr om congr es s i onal m andat es and i m pos es t oo hi gh a pena l tyi n hi s “run6

of the mi l l dow nl oadi ng cas e. ” ( A pp. at47. ) T he C our texpl ai ned: T her e i s perhaps no gr eat erevi l actordes truct i ve i m ages r epl i cat ed on the I nt ernett odaythan the pr ol i fer at i on of chi l d pornogr aphy . Pr ovi s i on of a j us tpuni s hm entand det err ence demand a l engthyt erm of i ncar cer at i on, and I n o te th a t M r. M c M ic k e n s c o u ld a ls o b e n e f it f ro m c o rr e c tio n a l tr e a tm e n t . .

. [The evi dence ] i ndi cat es thatM r . M cM i ckens had ac ces s t o m i nor s and thathe i nt er act ed w i th t hem i n a devi ous m anner . H e w as cl ear l yone s t ep fr om t aki ng even mor e des truct i ve ac t i on. A puni s hm enti n the mi d r ange of the gui del i ne r ange i s nece s s aryt o pr ot ectthe publ i c . . . butnotgr eat er than necessary , t o ach i eve sen t encing o bject i ves. (I d. at 79 . ) T h ese stat em en ts r ev ea l th e C o u rt ’s rejecti o n o f M cM icke n s’s p o li cyco n ce rn that“peopl e ar e gett i ng y ear s and y ear s i n pr i s on j us tforcl i cki ng on a mouse. ” (Id . at 6 6 .) B o th in g e n e ra l an d a s a p p lied in M c M ick e n s’s c a se , the C o u rt m a d e c lea r th a t it di d nots har e hi s vi ew of § 2G 2. 2; on the contr ary , i tfound the mi dpoi ntof the G ui del i nes r ange a ppr opr i at e i n l i ghtof the part i cul arfac t s of M cM i ckens ’ s cas e. T he C o u rt d id n o t a b u s e its d is c re tio n in im p o s in g th is s e n te n c e . See Thi el em ann , 575 F. 3d at270. CO NC L US I ON W e w i l l aff

i r m the j udgm entof s ent ence .