FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 27, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 33 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cr-0 03 94 -VMC- EAJ-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us

TIMOTHY GEENEN, 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 fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Feb ru ary 27 , 20 12 )
Befo re CARNES, HULL andFAY, Circ ui t Jud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Afte r pl ead in g g ui lt y

to vi ol at in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 ) by kn owi ng ly tran sp orti ng an d s hi pp in g c hi ldpo rn og rap hy in i nt ers ta te co m m erce , Tim ot hy Geene n app eal s h is 32 4- m on th sen te nc e, im po se d a t t he lo w endof t he Gui de li ne s ra ng e. Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . I. BACK GROUND InSep te m

be r 20 08 , a po li ce d et ect iv e co nt act edDefen da ntGeen enin th e
co ur se of i nv es ti ga ti ng a ch il d m ur de r th atoc cu rredne ar Geen en ’s res id en ce i n Fl or id a. Law enf

or cem en t ag en ts in te rv ie wedGeen enat h is res id en ce, an d h e de ni edan y

kn owl ed ge of t he m

ur de r. Howev er, o ne of t he ag en ts to ldGeen en th athe be li ev edGeen enwas i n p os se ss io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy, andth e ag en t reque st edth atGeen enturnov er an y co nt rab an d. Geen envo lu nt ari ly pro du ced
an d c on se nt edto a se arch of o ne of h is ex te rn al ha rddri ve s. Th e ag en t n ot ic ed
se ve n o th er re m ov ab le ha rddri ve s, an d Gee ne n s urren de redth os e as well
. Geen enth envo lu nt ari ly w en t t o the po li ce s ta ti on to an swe r qu es ti on s. Dur in g t hi s i nt erv ie w, Geene n e st im at edth athi s h arddri ve s co nt ai ne d 1 00 st il l pi ctur es an d a s m an y

as 1 0 v id eo s co nt ai ni ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy. Add it io na ll y , he ad m it te d t o apa stsex ua l re la ti on sh ip with a n e m an ci pa te d 1 6- y ear- ol d g irl in Fl or id a. Geen ende ni edhavi ng an y furth er i napp ro pr ia te co nt actwith m in or s an d
2to ldag en ts th athe us edth e ch il d p orno gr ap hy on ly whe n h e h ada ba d d ay at
work, o r a s tre ss fu l d ay , andne ed eda “ ki ck .” A sea rch of t he ha rddri ve s re ve al ed th atGeen enha d 2 7 p orno gr ap hi c st il l i m ag es an d 2 0 c hi ldpo rn og rap hi c m ov ie s,
so m e o f whi chwere l on ge r th anfiv e m in ut es . Geen enpl edgu il ty to v io la ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 ) by kn owi ng ly tran sp orti ng an d s hi pp in g i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce vi su al de pi ct io ns of a
m in oren ga gi ng in sex ua ll y ex pl ic itco nduc t. The pl ea ag reem en t i nc lu de s a
se nt en ce ap pe al waiv er, wh ic h p ro vi de s: The de fen da nt ag rees t h a t t h i s Co urt ha s juri sd ic ti on an d au th or it y to im po se an y se nt en ce up to th e st atut ory m ax im um an d ex pr es sl y waiv es th e rig ht to ap pe al [h is ] se nt en ce or to ch al le ng e it co ll at e r a l l y o n an y gr ou nd , in cl ud in g th e gr ou nd th at th e Co urt erre d in de te rm in in g th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge pu rs ua nt to th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, ex cep t (a) th e gr ou nd th at th e se nt en ce ex ceed s th e de fe nd an t’s ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge as de te rm in ed by th e Co urt pu rs uant to th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s; (b ) th e gr ou nd th at th e se nt en ce ex ceed s th e st atut ory m ax im um pe na lty ; or (c) th e gr ou nd th at th e s e nt en ce vi ol at es th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t to th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. . . . Pl ea Ag reem en t at13 (em ph as is ad de d) . The p le a ag reem en t al so st at edth at Geen en ’s off

en se was p un is habl e b y

a st atut ory

m in im um sen te nc e o f 15 y ears an d
a m ax im um of 4 0 years’ im

pr is on m en t. The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ) cal cu la te d Gee ne n’s t ot al of fen se lev el to be 39 an d h is cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory as I II. Giv enth es e 3cal cu la ti on s, t he Gui de li ne s ra ng e was 32 4 t o 4 05 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. At
se nt en ci ng , Geen enob

jecte d t o s ev eral parag rap hs of t he PSI, b utth e d is tri ctco urt
ov erru le d t he ob

jecti on s an d a do pt edth e PSI’s fa ctua l s ta te m en ts an d Gu id el in es cal cu la ti on s. Aft er h eari ng Geen en ’s m it ig at io n a rg um en ts , th e d is tri ctco urt im po se d abo tt om -o f-t he -Gu id el in es -ran ge sen te nc e o f 32 4 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Afte r th e im

po si ti on of s en te nc e, Geen enob jecte d, i nt er al ia , th athi s s en te nc e was
cru el an d u nu su al in vi ol at io n o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t.

II . SENTENCE APPEAL W AIVER Geen enfir starg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y in crea se d h is off

en se le ve l u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 (b )(5 ). Howev er, Geen enkn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly waiv edhi s ri gh t t o app eal any de fectin hi s s en te nc e p ert ai ni ng to th e d is tri ct
co urt’s d et erm in at io n o f th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s rang e. Acco rd in gl y , to th e 1
ex te ntGeen ench al le ng es hi s s en te nc e o n t hi s g ro un d, we d is m is s t he ap pe al in
acco rdwith h is waiv er.

II I. EI GHT H AMENDMENT CLAI M Not in g t he Eig ht h- Am en dm en t ex cep ti on in hi s ap pe al waiv er, Geen en arg ue s t ha t h is 32 4- m on th sen te nc e co ns ti tu te s crue l an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t i n
We reviewde novo the va lidity of a se ntence appea l waiver . United States v. J ohnson, 1 541 F.3d 1064, 1066 ( 11th Cir. 2008). A sentenc e appe al waive r is enfor ced if it was made knowing ly

and voluntarily . United States v. Bushe rt, 997 F.2d 1343, 1351 ( 11th Cir. 1993). 4vi ol at io n o f th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t. He ass ert s t ha t h is sen te nc e was bo th gre at er 2 th anne ces sa ry

to ach ie ve th e o bjec ti ve s arrayed at18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) an d di sp ro po rti on at e to th e se rio us ne ss of h is off en se be cau se he m erel y

vi ewedan d fo rward ed(as op po se d t o m an uf actur ed ) im ag es . Geene n fu rth er as se rts th atitis
cru el an d u nu su al to pu ni sh hi m forco nduc t h e is un ab le to co nt ro l due to an ad di ct io n. The Eig ht h Am en dm en t p ro vi de s t ha t “ [e]xce ss iv e b ai l s ha ll no t b e requi red , no r ex ces si ve fin es im po se d, n orcru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en ts in fli ct ed .” U.S. Con st . am en d. VIII . The Eig ht h Am en dm en t “ co nt ai ns a na rro w pr op orti on al it y

pri nc ip le th atap pl ie s t o n on cap it al sen te nc es .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jo hn so n, 4 51 F.3d12 39 , 12 42 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Neve rth el es s, “ [o ]uts id e th e
co nt ex t o f cap it al pu ni sh m en t, s uc ces sf ul ch al le ng es to th e p ro po rti on al it y of
se nt en ces [are ] ex ceed in gl y rare .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Raad , 40 6 F .3d13 22 , 13 23 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (qu ot in g S ol em v. Hel m , 46 3 U.S. 2 77 , 28 9, 1 03 S. Ct. 3 00 1 (1 98 3) ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Farl ey , 60 7 F .3d12 94 , 13 36 -4 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (h ol di ng th ata th irt y -y ear s ta tu to ry m in im um sen te nc e fo r ag gr av at edsex ua l

We reviewde novo the leg ality of a se ntence under the Eig hth Amendment. United 2 States v. Moriarty , 429 F.3d 1012, 1023 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 5ab us e o f a m in orin vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 24 1( c) d idno t v io la te th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t). Here, t he di st ric t co urt s en te nc edGeen enat t he bo tt om of t he Gui de li ne s
ran ge —t hi rte eny ears les s t ha n t he forty-y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um . Furt he r, ou ts id e of a sp eci al cat eg ory

of ju ve ni le off

en de rs , th is Co urt h as “ ne ve r fo un d aterm of im pr is on m en t t o v io la te th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t . . . .” Farl ey , 60 7 F .3dat 1 34 3. Bec au se th e d is tri ctco urt s en te nc edGeen enwithi n t he st atut ory li m it s, “ he ha s n ot
m ad e a thr es ho ldsh owi ng of d is pr op orti on al ity with re sp ectto hi s s en te nc e.” Jo hn so n, 4 51 F.3dat 1 24 3. Acc or di ng ly, we affi rm Geen en ’s sen te nc e. AFFIRMED I N PART, DISMI SSED I N PART. 3

To the extent Geene n argues that he r ece ived ineff ective a ssistance of c ounsel, we 3 decline to r eview his c laims beca use the re cord on dire ct appe al is not sufficiently develope d for us to review those claims. See United States v. L e, 256 F .3d 1229, 1241 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Massar o v. United States, 538 U.S. 500, 504, 123 S. Ct . 1690, 1694 (2003) ( “[I ]n m ost cases a motion brought under [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 is prefe rable to direct a ppeal f or dec iding c laims of ineffe ctive assistanc e.”)
. 6