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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GREGOR

Y TODD NUM ANN, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-30135

D.C . No. 3:16-c r-00065-TM B -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska Tim othy M . B urge ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 7, 2019 ** Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : TALLM AN, IKUTA, a nd N.R . SM ITH, C i rc u it Judge s. Gre gory Todd Num ann a

ppe a ls his 240-month te rm of im prisonm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3742, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED AUG 15 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 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).1. Num ann a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rrone ously a pplie d a two-le v e l
e nha nc e m e nt for obstruc tion of justic e pursua nt to Unite d State s Se nte nc ing Guide line s M anua l (“ U.S.S.G.” ) § 3C 1 .1 whe n it se nte nc e d him . Assuming without de c iding tha

t this e nha

n c e m e nt wa s im

prope rly a pplie d, 1 the e rror wa s ha rm le s s. W

he n it se nte nc e d Num ann, the distric t c o urt e xpre s sly

“ a c knowle dge [d] tha

t the c orre c t Guide l ine s ra nge [wa s] in dispute

and pe rform [e d] [its] se nte nc ing a na ly sis twic e , be g inning with both the c o rre c t and inc o rre c t range ,” Unite d State

s v . Munoz-C

amare na , 631 F.3d 1028, 1030 n.5 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ), and spe c ific a lly sta te d tha t it ha d de te rm ine d tha

t a 240-
m onth se n te nc e wa s a

ppropria te unde r e ithe r Guide line s range . 2 2. Num ann a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt dre w a

n a dve rse infe re nc e and inc re a se d his se nte nc e be c a use Num ann fa i le d to provide the pa ssword to oneof

1 At le a st one Ninth C i rc uit pa ne l ha s found tha

t obstruc t ive c onduc t m

ust be “ pa rt of the insta

nt offe nse of c onvic tion” to qua l ify a s obstruc tion unde r U.S.S.G. § 3C 1 .1. Unite d State

s v . W illiams , 693 F.3d 1067, 1076 (9th C ir. 2012). Howe ve r, othe r pane ls ha ve he ld tha

t the re is no “re q

uire m e nt tha t the obstruc tive c onduc t re late substa

nt ive ly to the offe nse of whic h the de fe nda nt is c o nvic te d.” Unite d State s v . He rnande

z-Ramire z , 254 F.3d 841, 844 (9th C ir. 2001); U nite d State s v . Ve rdin , 243 F.3d 1174, 1180 (9th C ir. 2001). W e de c line to re solve this inc o nsiste nc y

he re . 2 The se nt e nc e tha

t Num ann re c e ive d wa s be low the Guide line s ra nge for his offe nse with (324 to 360-m onths) or without (262-327 m onths) theobstruc tion of justic e e nha

nc e m e nt a

pplie d. 2the c om

pute rs (the “ Apple la

p top” ) that la

w e nforc e m e nt se iz e d

whe n the y
se arc he d Num a

nn’ s hom e . Though the

distric t c ourt sta

te d m ore tha

n onc e during the s e nte n c ing he a

ring tha t Num ann would not be punishe d for his fa ilure to provide tha

t pa ssword, thedistric t c ourt also sta t e d tha t Num ann’ s de c ision to withhold the

pa ssword pre ve nte d it from de te rm ining thele ve l of risk tha t Num ann would poseto the public in the future . As the distric t c ourt’ s re m arks se e m to sugge s t tha

t this “m issing pie c e ” pre ve nte d it from c onside ring a ll of thefa c tors
re fe re n c e d by

18 U.S.C
. § 3553(a ), and the re by pre ve nte d it from

c onside ring a le sse r punishm e nt or shorte r se nte nc e , we find tha t an a dve rse infe re nc e wa s draw n. Howe v e r, e ve n a ssum ing tha t the a d ve rse infe re nc e wa s im

prope r, 3 any

e rror
wa s ha rm le ss. The a dve rse infe re nc e wa s disc usse d by the distric t c o urt in
c onne c tion with the

c ourt’ s a sse ssm e nt of Num ann’ s risk of re -offe nding, a nd the de gre e to whic h the c ourt would ne e d to prote c t the public a ga inst suc h a possibility

in the future
. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a). B a se d on the e vide nc e be fore it, the d istric t c o urt found tha t Num ann pose d

a signific ant risk to the

public , a nd tha t

3 The gove rnm e nt a

rgue s (for the first tim e on a p pe a l) tha t no im pe rm issible a dve rse infe re n c e wa s drawn be c a u se Num ann’ s fa ilure to provide the pa ssword to the Apple la

p top wa s not prote c te d by the Fifth Am e ndm e nt. W e de c line to c onside r this a

rgum e nt, be c a

use it wa s not ra ise d be fore the distric t c ourt. Padge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). 3a

le ngthy te rm of im prisonm e nt wa s re quire d a s a re sult. Though Num

ann’ s pa ssword-re late d c onduc t is m e ntione d, the distric t c ourt note d tha t its c o nc lusion
wa s supporte d

by othe r fa c ts in there c ord be fore it, na m e ly : (1) the se rious na

ture of the pre se nt offe nse ; (2) Num ann’ s a dm itte d pa st se xua l a buse of his da

ughte r; (3) Num ann’ s m anipula

tion of his da

ughte r a fte r the se xua l a

buse c am e to light during theinve stiga

tion into the

pre s e nt offe nse ; a

nd (4) Num ann’ s ina

bility (or unwillingne ss) to gra s p the se ve rity of his c rim ina l c onduc t. Num ann did not disputeany

of those fa c ts be low, nor ha s he sought to c ha lle nge the m on a ppe a l. B a se d on the se undispute d fa c ts, a nd be c a u se Num ann ha s not ide ntifie d a ny
e vide nc e in the re c ord tha t pe rsua de s us tha

t a le sse r se nte nc e would ha ve be e n im pose d but for this infe

re nc e , a ny e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. Unite d State

s v . Ali , 620 F.3d 1062, 1074 (9th C ir. 2010). AFFIRM E D.

4