T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. P ON Y L E O J AC KS ON , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 30258 D. C. No . 4 : 0 9 - c r - 0 0 1 3 1 - BL W ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

I da ho B . L y nn W i nm i l l , C hi e f Judge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d June 15, 2011 ** B e f o r e : C A N B Y , O ’S C A N N L A I N , a n dF I S H E R , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . P onyL e o J a c ks on appe a l s f r om the 120- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

s e x u a llye x p lic it im a g e s o f m in o r s , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 2252( a ) ( 4) ( B ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C .§ 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f irm . 

# FI LED JU N 23 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 30258 2 J a c ks on c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtpr oc e dur a l l ye rr e d i n c a l c ul a t i ng the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge w he n i ta s s e s s e d c r i m i na l hi s t orypoi nt s f orapr i or o f f e n s e , r a th e rth a n c o u n tin g it a s r e le v a n t c o n du c t. T h is c o n te n tio n la c k s m e r it be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l yc ount e d J a c ks on’ s W y om i ng c onvi c t i on f or p o s s e s s io n o f

c h ildp o rn o g r ap h ya s ap r io rs e n te n c e r a th e rth a n a s r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. See U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n dc m t. n .1 ; U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 , c m t. n .9 ( B ) ; see a l so U ni te d States v . H

ahn , 9 6 0 F .2 d9 0 3 , 9 1 0 - 9 1 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . J a c k s o n a ls o c o n te n d s th a t th e s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le be c aus e : ( 1) the di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe gove rnm e nt ’ s de l a yi n br i ngi ng the c ha r ge s , the r e bye xpos i ng hi m t o i nc r e a s e d puni s hm e ntf r om the appl i c a t i on of aS e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s e nha nc e m e ntdue t o as ubs e que nts t a t e c onvi c t i on; a nd ( 2) f a i l e d t o a c c ountf

orthe thr e e y e a r s he s pe nti n pr i s on on r e l e va ntc onduc t . T he d is tr ic t c o u rt d e c lin e dto s e c o n d - g u e s s th e g o v e rn m e n t’s d e c is io n w ith r e s p e c t to the t i m i ng of

i t s c ha r gi ng de c i s i on a nd, a s di s c us s e d su p ra , J a c ks on’ s e a r l i e rpr i s on s e nt e nc e di d nota r i s e f

r om c onduc ttha ti s r e l e va ntt o the i ns t a ntof f e ns e . T he se nt ence atthe st atut ory m axi m um , w hi ch w as bel ow the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r a n g e , w a s n o t u n r e a s o n ab le . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7); s e e a ls o U

n ite d S ta tes v . Ca r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 1-93 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). AF F I RME D.