2009 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 3-30-2009 

# U SA v . D e rek S ch a de 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 . 08-2388

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_2009

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 2009 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 . D e r e k S ch a de " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1645. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1645-1- 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. 08- 2388

_____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. DER EK J . SCHA DE, A ppel l ant

___________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e U n ited S tate s D istric t 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 . N o. 07- cr - 00555- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 9, 2009 B e f o re : F U E N T E S , C H A G A R E S , a n d A L D IS E R T , C ir c u it J u d g e s .

( O pi ni on Fi l ed: M ar ch 30, 2009) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: A ppel l antD er ek J . Schade c hal l enges the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence s uppor t i ng h is c o n v ictio n f

o r tra n sp o rtin g a v isu a l d e p ictio n o f a m in o r e n g a g in g in se x u a llye x p licit-2-

conducti n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2252( a) ( 1) . Schade a l s o s eeks r evi ew of the s ent ence o f 1 6 8 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t f o r th a t o f f e n se a n d a re late d c h a rg e o f k n o w in g ly pos s es s i ng a vi s ual depi ct i on of a mi norengage d i n s exual l yexpl i ci tconducti n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2252( a) ( 4) ( B ) . Fort he r eas ons s t at ed bel ow , w e w i l l aff i r m both t he convi ct i on and s ent ence . I. 

### The Di s tri c t

Court ha d juri s di c t i on ove r

thi s c a s e pur s uant

t o 18 U. S. C. § 3231, and we have juri s di c t i on t o he ar the a ppe a lunde r

28 U. S. C. § 1291. I n de t e rmi ni ng whe the r s uffi c i e nt

e vi de nc e s upport s the jury ve r di c t , “ [w]e r e vi e w the r e c or d i n the l i ght m o st f av o rab le to th e p ro secutio nto d etermin e wh eth er any ratio n al trier o f

f act co u ld h av e f o un dp ro o f

o f g u ilt b eyo n da reaso n ab le d o ub t b asedo nth e av ailab le ev id en ce.” Un it ed Stat es v. Wolfe, 24 5 F .3d 2 57 , 261 (3d C ir . 200 1). W e r evie w the procedural c orr e c tne s s and s ubs t ant i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s of Sc ha de ’ s s e nt e nc e for abus e of di s c r e t i on. Un it ed Stat es v. Wi se , 515 F.3d20 7, 21 7-18 (3d C ir . 200 8). W e r e vi e w both the s uffi c i e nc y of the e vi de nc e unde rlyi ng Sc ha de ’ s c onvi c t i on and the procedural c hall enge to his s ente nce for plain error, a s nei ther is sue was ra is ed befo rethe Dis tric t Court . SeeUn it ed Stat es v. Kem p, 50 0 F .3d 2 57 , 278 (3d C ir . 200 7). “P lainerro r requ ires: (1 ) anerro r; (2 ) th at is p lain ; an d(3 ) th at af f ectedsub stantial rig hts.” Id . (intern al qu o tatio n s m ark s an dcitatio no mitted ). II.-3-

T he vi s ual depi ct i ons ati s s ue her e ar e vi deo and pi ctur e fi l es found on a c om put er ow ned bySchade. Schade ha d connec t ed hi s comput ert o “B ear s har e, ” a pe er - t o- peerfi l esh aring n etw o rk th rou g h w h ich u sers m aysea rch an d d o w n load fil es f rom the c o m p u ters of othernetw or k us er s . D i ffe r entpart s of a dow nl oaded f i l e maybe contr i but ed by d if f e re n t u s e rs ’ c o m p u te rs if m o re th a n o n e c o m p u te r c o n ta in s a c o p yo f th e f ile s o u g h t. Schade’ s hom e and c om put erw er e s ear ched a ft eran under coverpol i ce of fi cer dow nl oaded a chi l d por nogr aphyvi deo fi l e thr ough t he B ear s har e netw or k i n par tfr om Schade’ s comput er . T hats ear ch uncove r ed numer ous chi l d por nogr aphyfi l es on t he comput er , bot h m ovi es and s t i l l i m ages , s om e of w hi ch w er e cont ai ned i n a fol dert i t l ed “M yD ow nl oads . ” The pr os ecut i on pr es ent ed evi dence attr i al that , i n i ns t al l i ng the B ear s har e s oftw ar e, Schade ha d been s how n a s cr een not i fy i ng hi m thathe w oul d be s har i ng fi l es l ocat ed i n t hatfol derand had l eftthats ett i ng i n pl ace , w hi l e cha ngi ng the defa ultset t i ng regar ding the shari ng of p art i al fi l es. Schade w as i ndi ct ed on tw o count s : ( 1) know i ngl ytr ans por t i ng, and ai di ng and a b e tti n g th e tra n sp o rta tio n o f , a v isu a l d e p ictio n o f

a m in o r e n g a g in g in se x u a llye x p licit conducti n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2252( a) ( 1) ; and ( 2) pos s es s i ng a vi s ual depi ct i on of a m in o r e n g a g in g in s e x u a lly e x p lic it c o n d u c t in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 2 (a )( 4 )( B ). A j ur yfound hi m gui l t yof both char ges . Schade di d notchal l enge the s uffi ci encyof the e v id e n c e p re s e n te d e ith e r d u ri n g th e tr ia l o r a f te r t h e v e rd ic t. T he D i s t r i ctC our ts ubs equent l ys ent ence d Schade t o 168 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , at-4-

t he bot t om of hi s G ui del i nes r ange of 168 t o 210 m ont hs . I n i m pos i ng thats ent ence , t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatt he appl i cabl e r ange w as the pr oductof a Congre s s i onal amendm entt hatdi r ect ed the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on t o add an e nhance m entt o t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes bas ed on the quant i t yof i m ages i nvol ved i n a chi l d por nogr aphy o f f e n se . T h e D istric t C o u rt m e n tio n e d th a t leg isla tiv e h isto ryin sta tin g th a t al t hough t he G ui del i nes ar e notm andat ory[underU ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) ] , I bel i eve thatC ongr es s ’ r es ol ut i ons and pol i cys t at ement s ar e an extr a fa ct ort hata J udge . . . m us tt ake i nt o acc ounti n i m pos i ng s ent ence , and that I— it w o u ld b e w ro n g f

o r m e , in th is c a se , in a c a se c h a rg in g c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y , to cons i derm y s el f t o have a s m uch di s cr et i on as i n a ca s e, i n w hi ch C ongr es s has not spok en the w ayi thas i n ch i l d p ornog raphycases. (A p p . 5 9 2 . ) T h e D istri ct C o u rtfu rth er c it ed the h arm to ch il d ren resu lt ing fro m S ch ad e’s o f f e n se s, th e h a rm to h is f

a m ily , the n e e d to m a k e c lea r th e “ e v il” o f S c h a d e ’s c o n d u c t, and the nee d t o t ake hi m “outof publ i c” f orpurpos es of puni s hm entand r ehabi l i t at i ve tr e a tm e n t a s re a s o n s ju s tif y in g th e 1 6 8 m o n th s e n te n c e . (A p p . 5 9 2 -9 4 .)

III . A. Schade f i r s tar gues t hatt her e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor thi s convi ct i on on t h e c h a r g e o f

t r a n s p o r t i n g o ra i d i n g a n d a b e t t i n g th e tr a n s p o r t a t i o n o f c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y. H e poi nt s outt hatt her e i s no w ayof know i ng w hi ch por t i on of the dow nl oaded f i l e w as contr i but ed byhi s comput er , and thus w hetherthatpor t i on actual l ydepi ct ed a mi nor e n g a g e d in se x u a l co n d u c t. T h is a rg u m e n t is u n a v a ili n g ; at th e v e rylea st S c h a d e is liab le as an ai derand abe t t or . H i s comput ercontr i but ed s om e partof a vi deo thats how ed a-5-

m i norengagi ng i n s exual act i vi t y . I tw oul d be emi nent l yr eas onabl e forthe j uryt o have concl uded thatSchade a i ded and a bet t ed the tr ans por t at i on of a vi s ual depi ct i on of a mi nor engage d i n s exual act i vi t ybym aki ng t he chi l d por nogr aphyfi l e ava i l abl e i n t he “M y D ow nl oads ” fol derforanypar tof i tt o be dow nl oaded, r es ul t i ng i n t he ut i l i zat i on of that fi l e byanotherus erof B ear s har e s eeki ng t o dow nl oad the compl et e vi deo. See U ni t ed St at es v. Fr orup, 963 F. 2d 41, 43 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( “I n or dert o es t abl i s h t he off ens e of a i d i n g a n d a b e t t i n g , t h e Go v e r n me n tmu s tp r o v e two e l e me n t s : th a tth e s u b s t a n t i v e c r i me h a s b e e n c o m m itt e d a n d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t k n e w o f

th e c rim e a n d a ttem p ted to f a c ili tate it. ” ); c f. U n ited S tate s v . S h a f f e r, 4 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 1 9 , 1 2 2 3 -2 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (s h a rin g c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yo n p e e r-to -p e e r f ile-s h a rin g n e tw o rk c o n stitu tes “ d istrib u tio n ” o f c h ild p o rn o g ra p h y , w h e re to “ d istrib u te” m e a n s to tra n sf e r to o th e rs) ; U n ited S tate s v . C a ra n i, 492 F. 3d 867, 875- 76 ( 7t h C i r . 2007) ( s i m i l ar ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. G r i ffi n, 482 F. 3d 1008, 1 0 1 2 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (si m il ar). A ddi t i onal l y , Schade s ugges t s thatther e w as i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o s how thathe k n ew the c h il d p o rno g rap h yfil es o n h is co m p u ter co u ld b e d o w n load ed b yo ther B ea rsha re u se rs. H o w e v e r, th e re w a s e v id e n c e a t trial sh o w in g th a t S c h a d e w a s n o tifie d w h ile d o w n lo a d in g th e so f

tw a re f o r B e a rsh a re th a t itw o u ld a llo w o th e rs to u p lo a d f iles f ro m h is comput er , and he e ven cha nged the def aul ts ett i ngs forfi l e- s har i ng. Fur t herm or e, Schade t es t i fi ed thathe hi m s el f us ed B ear s har e forfi l e- s har i ng. E s peci al l ys i nce w e j udge the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence s uppor t i ng a j ury ’ s ver di ctunder“a pa r t i cul ar l ydefe r ent i al-6-

s t andar d of r evi ew , ” U ni t ed St at es v. D ent , 149 F. 3d 180 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , w e ca nnot concl ude thatt he j ur yw as unr eas onabl e i n det erm i ni ng fr om thi s evi dence thatSchade i nt ent i onal l ykeptchi l d por nogr aphyfi l es i n t he “M yD ow nl oads ” fol derand knew that doi ng s o w oul d al l ow B ear s har e us er s t o acc es s and upl oad them. C f. Shaffe r , 472 F. 3d at 1223 ( fi ndi ng t hatdefe ndanthad di s t r i but ed chi l d por nogr aphyw her e he ke ptfi l es i n a lo c a tio n o n h is c o m p u ter w h e re th e yw o u ld b e sh a re d o v e r a f ile-s h a rin g n e tw o rk ). E v e n if S c h a d e d id n o t k n o w th a t a p a rticu lar v id e o h a d b e e n d o w n lo a d e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t ag e n t, he knew t hatchi l d por nogr aphyfi l es w er e ava i l abl e fordow nl oad fr om hi s comput eratany tim e . A s th e T e n th C irc u it h a s d e sc rib e d th is s o rt o f a rra n g e m e n t: I ti s s om ethi ng aki n t o t he ow nerof a s el f- s erve gas s t at i on. T he ow nerm aynotbe pr es entatt he s t at i on, and ther e maybe no att endantpr es entatal l . A nd nei t hert he ow nernorhi s orheragent s m ayeverpum p gas . B utthe ow nerhas a r oads i de s i gn l et t i ng al l pas s er s byknow t hat , i f theychoos e, theycan s t op and fi l l thei rcar s for t hemsel ves , pay i ng att he pump bycr edi tcar d. J us tbeca us e the oper at i on i s s el fserve . . . w e do no tdo ub tfor a m om ent that the g as st at i on ow ner i s i n the busi ness of “di s t r i but i ng, ” del i ver i ng, ” “tr ans ferr i ng” or“di s per s i ng” gas ol i ne; the r ais on d’etre of ow ni ng a gas s t at i on i s t o do j us tthat . So, t oo, a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd t hat[the def

endant ] w el comed peopl e t o hi s comput erand w as qui t e happyt o l et th e m tak e c h ild p o rn o g ra p h yf ro m it. Id . a t 1 2 2 3 -2 4 . Fi nal l y , Schade c ont ends t hatthe governm entpr es ent ed no evi dence s how i ng t hathe t r ans por t ed chi l d por nogr aphyi n i nt er s t at e comm er ce. H e ac know l edges thatw e have pr evi ous l yhel d t hatt hi s el ementof 18 U . S. C . § 2252 m aybe s at i s fi ed bya s how i ng t hatt he i m age tr avel ed overt he i nt ernet , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. M acEw an, 445 F. 3d 237, 243- 44 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , butnevert hel es s cal l s on us t o fol l ow a Tent h C i r cui tcas e hol di ng that§ 2252-7-

req u ir es a n af

firm ati v e sh o w ing that an im ag e w as tran sm itted a cro ss state l ines . W e a re bound byt he pr ece dent i al deci s i ons of ourC our tand thus w e w i l l fol l ow the hol di ng of M ac E w an . S ee In re C o n ti n en tal A ir li n es, 13 4 F . 3 d 5 3 6 , 5 4 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). B. Schade a l s o chal l enges hi s s ent ence of 168 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , as s ert i ng thatt he D i s t r i ctC our texpr es s ed an e r r oneous bel i ef thati tw as notful l yfr ee t o s ent ence out s i de the appl i cabl e Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange i n a chi l d por nogr aphycas e. See Spear s v. U ni t ed St at es , 129 S. C t . 840, 842- 43 ( 2009) ( hol di ng thata s ent enci ng courti s notbound byt he G ui del i nes , and maydevi at e fr om a r ecomm ended r ange ba s ed eve n on a pur e pol i cy di s agr eement ) ; G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 128 S. C t . 586, 597 ( 2007) ( cat egor i zi ng “tr eat i ng t he G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry” a s a “ s ig n if ic a n t p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r” ). Schade i s corr ectt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d s t at e thati t s di s cr et i on w as s om ew hat con strai ned becau se C on gress had exp l i ci t l ydir ect ed the Se ntenci ng C om m i ssi on t o im po se enhanc ement s forpos s es s i on of ce r t ai n quant i t i es of chi l d por nogr aphyi n a 2003 s t atut e. H ow ever , i ti s notcl eart hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tei t hertr eat ed the G ui del i nes as m andat or yor even dis agreed w i t h the r ecom m end ed sentenci ng range y etfel tbo un d b ythe G uidel i nes. T he D i s t r i ctC our tci t ed a numberof r eas ons w hySchade’ s offe ns es s houl d be tr eat ed as s e r i o u s , e v i n c i n g a j u d g m e n tt h a tS c h a d e ’ s c i r c u m s t a n c e s w o u l d b e r e f l e c t e d b y a G ui del i nes s ent ence . T he D i s t r i ctC our tal s o char act er i zed Congre s s ’ s i ns t ruct i ons as s i m pl ys om ethi ng t o “t ake . . . i nt o acc ount ” i n r eac hi ng an i ndi vi dual i zed s ent ence , notan-8-

a b s o lu te c o n s tr a in t, a n d re c o g n iz e d th a t it d id h a v e s o m e a m o u n t o f d is c re tio n . (A p p . 5 9 2 .) A tno poi ntdi d t he D i s t r i ctC our ti ndi cat e anyfee l i ng thata s ent ence out s i de the G ui del i nes w as appr opr i at e ort hatt he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange r efl ect ed an i nval i d pol i cy , i ns t ead i ndepende nt l ynot i ng t he cons i der abl e harm caus ed bySchade’ s cr i m es . C f. U ni t ed St at es v . P en n av aria, 4 4 5 F . 3 d 7 2 0 , 7 2 2 -23 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (find ing p lai n erro r w h ere d istri ct co u rt t r eat ed G ui del i nes as m andat or y , as evi dence d bys t at ementthat“I w i l l s aythati f the g u id e lin e s w e re n o t ap p lica b le a t all, th a t I w o u ld se n ten c e h e re to a t lea st d o u b le w h a t I h av e im p o sed ”). A lth o u g h w e re it era te th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s direc ti o n that a d istri ct co u rt sh o u ld n o t trea t th e G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry , itis n o t cle a r th a t th e D istric t C o u rt in th is cas e di d s o s i m pl ybeca us e i tt ook i nt o acc ountC ongr es s ’ s pr onouncement s on t he s er i ous nes s of chi l d por nogr aphyoffe ns es . See U ni t ed St at es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 249 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng t hati ti s err orfora s ent enci ng courtt o bel i eve “ t hati thas no d isc re tio n ” to tre a t th e G u id e lin e s a s a d v iso ry ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h u s w e c a n n o t f in d p lain err or i n the sent encing p roceedings. Schade’ s s ent ence i s al s o s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. C ont r aryt o hi s as s ert i on, the D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notr el yexce s s i vel yon t he r ecomm endat i on of C ongr es s i n i m pos i ng a 1 6 8 m o n th se n ten c e . A lth o u g h th a t w a s o n e re lev a n t f a c to r, th e D istric t C o u rt th o ro u g h ly d iscu ssed sev era l othe r reaso n s fo r i ts sen tenc e w ith in the sco p e o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a), in c lu d in g th e h a rm d o n e b yS c h a d e a n d th e n e e d f o r re h a b ili tatio n a n d p u n ish m e n t. T h a t is s uffi ci entt o r endert hi s an ade quat el yi ndi vi dual i zed de t erm i nat i on i n w hi ch the D i s t r i ct-9-

C our tgave meani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he fa ct s of Schade ’ s cas e. See U ni t ed St at es v. L ev inso n , 5 4 3 F . 3 d 1 9 0 , 1 9 6 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). I V. F o r th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.