N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JONATHAN M IC HAEL SUDDUTH, AKA Tre nt, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50116

D.C . No. 2:09-c r-00068-VAP-11 C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , Los Ange le s AM E NDE D M EM OR A NDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R YAN HAW THOR

NE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50451

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00706-VAP-1 C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , Los Ange le s

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. R YAN HAW THOR

NE, AKA Pic , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50452

D.C . No. 2:09-c r-00068-VAP-6 C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , Los Ange le s 

# F IL ED
FEB 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALSAppe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 19, 2014 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SINGLETON, Se nior Distric t Judge
. *** In c onne c t ion with his pa rtic ipation on a

c hild pornogra

phy m e ssa ge boa

rd, Jona tha n Sudduth ple d guilty to c onspira c y to a dve rtise c hild pornogra phy . As pa rt of his ple a

a gre e m e nt, Sudduth e xpre ssly wa ive d his right to a

ppe a l his
c onvic tion a

nd the c a lc ulation a

nd te rm s of his se nte nc e . B e c a u se Sudduth doe s not c onte st tha

t his a ppe lla te w a ive r wa s knowingly and volunta rily m a de , the
wa ive r bars Sudduth’ s a

ppe a l of the distric t

c o urt’ s de nia l of his m o tions to withdra w his ple a

an d to substitute

c ounse l, a

nd it ba rs his a ppe a l of the c a lc ulation
and re a sona

ble n e ss of his 22-y e ar se nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Harris , 628 F.3d

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Ja m e s K. Single ton, Se nior Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ala ska , sitting by de signa t ion. 21203, 1205 (9th C ir. 2011); Unite d State s v . Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1259 (9th C ir. 2011). Sudduth a lso fra

m e s in c onstitutiona

l te rm s c ha lle nge s to his sente nc e on dispa rity grounds a

nd to thebre a dth of thesupe rvise d re le a se c o nditions. W

hile this C ourt ha s jurisdic tion to c onside r c la im s of c onstitutiona l e rror notwithsta

nding thee xiste nc e of a

n a p pe lla te wa ive r, Unite d State

s v . Odac hy an , 749 F.3d 798, 801 (9th C ir. 2014), thedistric t c ourt did not err he re . The distric t
c ourt ha d good re a s ons to tre at Sudduth diffe re ntly from othe r partic ipa

nts in the
c rim e s. Se eUnite d

State s v . C arte r , 560 F.3d 1107, 1121 (9th C ir. 2009). Sudduth posse s se d a

pproxim ate ly

7,000 im a ge s, som e of whic h involve d sa distic ove rtone s,
and a dm itte d tha

t he ha d se xua lly

a buse d two m inor c hildre n. M ore o ve r, Sudduth did not provide

use ful inform ation re ga

rding othe r vic t im s or ta

rge ts a nd
e ve ntua lly

stoppe d c oope rat ing with the gove rnm e nt. Ac c ordingly , we dism iss Sudduth’ s a

ppe a l. Sudduth’ s c o-de fe nda

nt, R y an Ha wthorne , a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s c ontribution orde

r. B e c a use Ha wthorne did not obje c t to thec o ntribution order in the p roc e e dings be low, his c la im is re vie we d for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Fu She ng K uo , 620 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th C ir. 2010). Ac c ordingly , Ha wthorne m

ust show e rror that is pla i n a

nd a ffe c ts his substa

ntia l rights. U

nite d State

s v . 3Pe lisame n , 641 F.3d 399, 404 (9th C ir. 2011). Should he m ake suc h a showing,
we m ay the n gra nt re lie f only

if “ the e rror se riously

a ffe c ts the fa irne ss, inte grity , or public re puta

tion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Fu She ng K uo , 620 F.3d a

t 1164 (quoting Unite d State

s v . C o t ton , 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002)) (inte rna l quota

tion
m arks om itte d). He re , the distric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in c onc luding tha

t Ha w thorne did not ha ve a c onstitutiona

l right to a gove rnm e nt-pa id a dditional c ounse l for the purpose of obta ining a se c o nd opinion re g arding theva lidity of his guilty

ple a . And e ve n if tha

t finding wa s inc orre c t , a

m atte r we do not de c ide , it did not affe c t Hawthorne ’ s “ substa

ntia l rights.” Se e Pe lisame n , 641 F.3d a t 405-06. In this c a se , 1) the distric t c ourt a

p pointe d substitute

a dvisory c ounse l; 2) the m otion to withdra w his guilty

ple a wa s m a de , he ard, a

nd de nie d; a

nd 3) Ha wthorne did not
a ppe a l the de nia l of his m otion to withdra w his ple a . Se e id
. Sudduth’s appe al, file d unde r Doc ke t No. 12-50116, is DISMISSE D. H aw thor ne ’s c ontr ibution or de r , appe ale d unde r Doc ke t Nos. 12-50451 and 12-50452, is AFFIRM

E D.

4