2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-21-2008 

# U SA v . W age m ann P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1350

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . W ag e m ann" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1177. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1177T he H onor abl e J os eph H . R odr i guez, Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge forthe U ni t ed St at es * D i s tr i ctC our t , D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 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. 07- 1350

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . M AR K WAGE M ANN,

A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 06- cr - 104 (H o n o rab le R o n ald L . B u ck w alt er) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay15, 2008 B e f o re : M c K E E a n d G A R T H , C i r cui tJudges , a n d R O D R IG U E Z , D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed: M ay21, 2008 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURTW agemann’ s couns el di d notm ove fordepartur e orvar i ance fr om the ca l cul at ed 1 gui del i nes , norw as a mot i on everfi l ed att acki ng the cons t i tut i onal i t yof the s t atut es char ged i n t he i ndi ctm entort he mandat orym i ni m um penal t ypr ovi ded bys t atut e. 2 R O D R IG U E Z , D is tr i ct Judge . D e f e n d a n tMa r k Wa g e m a n n a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d j u d g m e n to f s e n t e n c e . We have j ur i s di ct i on overt he ca s e pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W agemann’ s at t orneyhas fil ed a m o ti o n to w ith d raw as c o u n sel an d h as su b m itted a b ri ef u n d er A nders v. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) . W agemann di d notfi l e a pro se b ri e f. W e w ill a f f ir m . I. B egi nni ng on N ovember2, 2005 and cont i nui ng unt i l hi s D ece m ber16, 2005 arr es t , fr om hi s hom e i n M i s s our i , W agemann corr es ponded vi a comput erw i t h an under coverFB I agentpos i ng as a fourt een y earol d gi r l fr om Phi l adel phi a. U s i ng i ns t ant m e s s a g in g , e -m a il, a n d te le p h o n e , h e a rr a n g e d to m e e t th e f e m a le in d iv id u a l f

o r s e x . W agemann w as arr es t ed i n Phi l adel phi a and he l d w i t houtbai l . H e w as i ndi ct ed on M ar ch 9, 2006, char ged w i t h us i ng i nt er s t at e comm uni cat i ons t o s educe a mi nori n vi ol at i on of 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 2 2 (b ) a n d w ith tra v e l an d a ttem p t to tra v e l w ith in ten t to e n g a g e in ill icit se x u a l co n d u c t in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 2 3 (b ). F a c in g a m a x im u m se n ten c e o f six ty y e a rs im p riso n m e n t, W a g e m a n n p led g u iltyto b o th c o u n ts o f th e in d ictm e n t w ith o u t a pl ea a gr eementon M ay31, 2006. A l t hough W agemann’ s gui del i ne r ange w as cal cul at ed at46- 57 m ont hs , he w as s ent ence d t o s i xtym onths , the mandat orym i ni m um t erm of 1“The dut i es of couns el w hen pr epar i ng an A nd ers br i ef a r e ( 1) t o s at i s fythe courtt hat 2 c o u n se l h a s th o ro u g h lye x a m in e d th e re c o rd in se a rc h o f a p p e a lab le is su e s, a n d (2 ) to expl ai n w hyt he i s s ues ar e fr i vol ous . ” U n itedS ta tes v . Y

o u la , 2 4 1 F . 3 d 2 9 6 , 3 0 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). “A n ap p ea l on a m att er o f law is fri v o lou s w h ere n o n e o f th e leg al po ints are ar guabl e on thei rm er i t s . ” I d. a t 3 0 1 . 3 i m pr i s onm entpr ovi ded by18 U . S. C . § 2422( b) , as w el l as fi ve y ear s of s upervi s ed re le a s e , a f

in e o f $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 a n d a s p e c ia l a s s e s s m e n t o f $ 2 0 0 . II. T hi r d C i r cui tL ocal A ppel l at e R ul e 109. 2( a) pr ovi des : “[w ] her e, upon r evi ew of the di s tr i ctcour tr ecor d, t r i al couns el i s per s uaded thatthe appe al pr es ent s no i s s ue of even a r guabl e mer i t , t r i al couns el m ayfi l e a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw and s uppor t i ng br i ef pur s uantt o A n d e rs v . C a lif o rn ia . . . . ” O uri nqui r yw hen couns el s ubm i t s an A nd ers br i ef i s “tw ofol d: ( 1) w hethercouns el adequa t el yful fi l l ed the rul e’ s r equi r ement s ; and ( 2) w h e th e r a n in d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e re c o rd p re s e n ts a n yn o n f ri v o lo u s is s u e s .” U

ni t ed 2 S ta tes v . Y

o u la , 241 F. 3d 296, 300 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . I n t he A nd ers br i ef, A ppel l ant c o n te n d s th a t th e m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e o f s ix ty m o n th s re q u ir e d b y1 8 U .S .C . § 2 4 2 2 (b ) i s u n c o n s titu tio n a l. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. Kel l um , w e r ej ect ed the ar gum entthata di s t r i ctcour thas author i tyunder18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) t o i m pos e a s ent ence bel ow the s t atut orym i ni m um even i f i tbel i eves t he s t atut or ym i ni m um i s gr eat erthan nec es s aryt o achi eve the goal s of s e n te n c in g . 3 5 6 F .3 d 2 8 5 , 2 8 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e tw o n a rr o w e x c e p tio n s in 1 8 U .S .C . §4

3 5 5 3 (e) an d (f) are “the o n lyau tho ri tya d istri ct co u rth as to d ep art be low a m an d atory m i ni m um s ent ence . . . . ” I d. N ei t heri s appl i cabl e her e. W e a re g u id e d f

u rth e r b yth e re q u ire m e n t th a t w e g ra n t “s u b sta n tial d e f e re n c e to the br oad author i t yt hatl egi s l atur es nece s s ar i l ypos s es s i n det erm i ni ng the types and l i m i t s of puni s hm ent s forcr i m es , ” U ni t ed Stat es v. W

alker , 4 7 3 F . 3 d 7 1 , 7 6 (3d C ir . 2007) . I n addi t i on, w e have “s quar el yaddr es s ed and r ej ect ed the ar gum entthat m and at orysent ences v i olat e t he d octr i ne o f separat i on of p ow ers and the D ue P rocess C l aus e. ” I

d. ( ci t i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. MacEw an , 4 4 5 F .3 d 2 3 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )) . O therci r cui t s s peci fi cal l yhave f ound t hatthe mi ni m um s ent ence m andat ed by s e c tio n 2 4 2 2 (b ) d o e s n o t v io la te th e s e p a ra tio n o f p o w e rs d o c tr in e . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. G agl i ar di , 506 F. 3d 140, 148 ( 2d C i r . 2007) . N ori s 18 U . S. C . § 2242( b) u n c o n s titu tio n a lly v a g u e o r o v e rb ro a d . I d. ; U ni t ed Stat es v. Tykars ky , 446 F. 3d 458, 472- 73 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( al s o fi ndi ng 18 U . S. C . § 2422( b) cons t i tut i onal i n fac e of Com m er ce C lau se c h a llen g e ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 4 1 0 F . 3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 4 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); U nited S tates v. D hingra , 3 7 1 F . 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 3 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); U n itedS ta tes v . P a n

fil , 338 F .3 d 1 2 9 9 , 1 3 0 1 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. B ai l ey , 2 2 8 F . 3 d 6 3 7 , 6 3 9 (6th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). I n addi t i on, W agemann’ s D ue Pr oces s chal l enge i s w i t houtm er i t . T hr ough t he Pr es ent ence R eportand the appl i cabl e s t atut e, W agemann had not i ce of both t he fa ctual pr edi cat e and the pot ent i al puni s hm entof hi s cr i m e. A tthe t i m e, 18 U . S. C . § 2422( b)T he s t atut e has s i nce be en amended t o pr ovi de a mandat orym i ni m um s ent ence of t en 3 y e a rs a n d a m a x im u m s e n te n c e o f lif e . See A dam W al s h C hi l d Pr ot ect i on SafetyA ctof 2 0 0 6 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 9 -24 8 , § 2 0 3 , 1 2 0 S tat . 5 8 7 , 6 1 3 (July2 7 , 2 0 0 6 ). 5 pr ovi ded fora “f

i ne . . . and i m pr i s on[m entof] notl es s than 5 y ear s and notm or e than 30 y ea rs. ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 4 2 (b)(2 0 0 6 ). See a l so U nited S tates v. A usbu rn , 502 F. 3d 313 ( 3d 3 C i r . 2007) ( r ej ect i ng a due pr oces s chal l enge t o a 144- m ont h s ent ence forvi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2422( b) , butvaca t i ng and r emandi ng beca us e the di s t r i ctcour tdi d notpr ovi de a stat em en t of

rea so n s su ff

ici en t fo r circuit t o rev iew fo r reaso n ab lene ss). Fi nal l y , t he mandat or ys ent ence i m pos ed i s notgr os s l ydi s pr opor t i onat e t o t he g ra v ityo f

W a g e m a n n ’s o f

f e n se s s o a s to b rin g it w ith in th e p u rv iew o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t’ s p ro p o rt io n a lity p ri n c ip le . See U nited S tates v. Mun ro , 394 F. 3d 865, 873 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( cons i der i ng t he s er i ous nes s of att empt ed s exual abus e of a chi l d, fi vey e a r m a n d a to rym in im u m se n ten c e f o r u sin g th e In ter n e t in a ttem p t to p e rsu a d e m in o r to engage i n s exual act s i s nots o gr os s l ydi s pr opor t i onat e t o t he cr i m e as t o cons t i tut e “c ruel and unus ual puni s hm ent , ” eve n forfi r s toffe ns e) . O urr evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s , as A ppel l ant ’ s couns el cont ends , t her e ar e no non- fr i vol ous i s s ues . W e ther efor e af fi r m t he convi ct i on and j udgm entof s ent ence . D efe ns e couns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i t hdr aw i s gr ant ed.