Opinion ID: 165980
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Constitutionality of Dr. Soderstrand's Sentence

Text: 23 The district court below, rather than a jury, made the following findings of fact in the course of its sentencing determination: (1) the material involved prepubescent minors or minors under the age of 12 years; (2) the offense involved possessing ten or more books, magazines, periodicals, films, videotapes, or other items, containing a visual depiction involving the sexual exploitation of a minor; and (3) a computer was used for the transmission of the material. 3 On appeal, Dr. Soderstrand argues that he did not admit to any of these findings. Aplt. Br. at 28. However, in his guilty plea, Dr. Soderstrand admitted [k]nowingly possessing computer disks and material containing images of child pornography that had been mailed, shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer. Aplt.App. at 141. We find that this amounts to an admission to the substance of the third finding — that a computer was used in the transmission of the material. 4 24 Dr Soderstrand objected below to the Pre-Sentence Report findings, later adopted by the district court, which concerned the age of the minors depicted in the material he possessed, and the quantity of material he possessed. Aplt.App. at 90-91. He did not argue below, however, that the district court's findings of fact on these or any other issues violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Taking into account the facts admitted by Dr. Soderstrand, but excluding the contested facts regarding the age of the minors and the quantity of material, Dr. Soderstrand would have been subject to a total offense level of 15. In a case such as his, where there is no prior criminal record, this offense level would have had a guideline sentencing range of 18-24 months. Considering all the district court's findings, however, Dr. Soderstrand was subject to a total offense level of 19, with a resulting sentencing range of 30-37 months. The district court sentenced Dr. Soderstrand within this latter range, to a total of 35 months' incarceration. 25 For the first time on appeal, Dr. Soderstrand argues that this sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, pursuant to Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. supra at 2531. See also United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. supra at 738; United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727 (10th Cir.2005) (en banc). Because he failed to raise this issue below, we review the district court's sentencing determination for plain error. Gonzalez-Huerta, supra at 732. Plain error occurs when there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. See also United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). We apply this analysis less rigidly when reviewing a potential constitutional error. United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147, 1174 (10th Cir.2005). 26 Here there is error and it is plain. A more difficult question follows under the third prong of Olano, as applied in Gonzalez-Huerta and subsequent cases — whether the error affected Dr. Soderstrand's substantial rights. We have held that a defendant may make this showing in at least two ways: 27 First, if the defendant shows a reasonable probability that a jury applying a reasonable doubt standard would not have found the same material facts that a judge found by a preponderance of the evidence, then the defendant successfully demonstrates that the error below affected his substantial rights.... Second, a defendant may show that the district court's error affected his substantial rights by demonstrating a reasonable probability that, under the specific facts of his case as analyzed under the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court judge would reasonably impose a sentence outside the Guideline range. 28 Dazey, 403 F.3d at 1175 (footnote omitted). The defendant bears the burden to establish that his substantial rights were affected to satisfy the third Olano prong. Dazey, supra. 29 Dr. Soderstrand does not argue that the district court would have imposed a lesser sentence under the facts it found, had the judge been aware of his discretion to do so. In order to demonstrate that the error here affected his substantial rights (to satisfy the third prong of Olano ), Dr. Soderstrand must therefore show a reasonable probability that a jury applying a reasonable doubt standard would have found either that he did not possess more than ten images which met the standard for child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(B)(iii), or that none of the images he possessed were of a child under 12, or that if he did possess any images of children under 12, those images did not meet the standard for child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(B)(iii). 30 Before the district court, Dr. Soderstrand did not introduce any affirmative evidence which would have supported any of these contentions. Rather, Dr. Soderstrand argued principally that the Government failed to prove the element of lasciviousness necessary for an image or depiction to constitute child pornography under the statute and as explained by United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D.Cal.1986); accord United States v. Wolf, 890 F.2d 241, 245 (10th Cir.1989) (applying the Dost factors to the term lascivious). The Government, by contrast, contends that the evidence and testimony it introduced was overwhelming, and that any fact-finder, under any standard would have reached the same sentencing determinations that the district court did at sentencing. Aplee. Br. at 31, 33. 31 Ultimately, we need not reach a decision on the third Olano prong — whether Dr. Soderstrand's substantial rights were affected. Even assuming that Dr. Soderstrand could show that the sentencing below affected his substantial rights, we find that Dr. Soderstrand has not met his burden of persuading us that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings, United States v. Mozee, 405 F.3d 1082, 1091 (10th Cir.2005), thus failing to satisfy the fourth prong of Olano. As we have explained, in the context of a constitutional Booker error the question before us is whether a reversal and remand for resentencing by the district court under a discretionary guidelines regime would advance the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the courts. Mozee, 405 F.3d supra. [C]ourts have held that sentencing error meets the fourth prong of plain-error review only in those rare cases in which core notions of justice are offended. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d supra at 739. 32 Here the district court determined that the guideline range applicable to Dr. Soderstrand's offense was 30-37 months. It sentenced him toward the upper end of that range, imposing a sentence of 35 months. The district judge stated that he chose not to sentence Dr. Soderstrand to the maximum penalty because there was no evidence Dr. Soderstrand had exchanged or trafficked in any of the pornographic material, rather than simply possessing it for his own use, and because Dr. Soderstrand had otherwise had an outstanding career with no evidence of any past misconduct. Aplt.App. at 133. However, the judge did not sentence Dr. Soderstrand to the minimum or close to the minimum penalty under the guideline range, either. He noted that child pornography is produced for profit, and the reason why it can be made for profit is because people like Dr. Soderstrand will view it. Id. at 132. The judge emphasized the many victims ultimately impacted by Dr. Soderstrand's conduct, with the saddest of all being the many young children who were abused in the making of the pornographic material Dr. Soderstrand was convicted of possessing. Id. As a result, the judge stated he believed a sentence of 35 months' incarceration was appropriate. Id. at 133. 33 Thus the district judge exercised his discretion and determined that a sentence of 35 months was appropriate, although he obviously could have sentenced Dr. Soderstrand to a lesser term of imprisonment. Accordingly, there is no basis for us to assume [Dr. Soderstrand] would receive a lesser sentence if he were resentenced under a discretionary sentencing regime in which the district court is required to `consider' the guidelines when it exercises its discretion. Mozee, 405 F.3d supra at 1092. Dr. Soderstrand has failed to establish that there is an appearance of unfairness in his sentence, and accordingly, he has failed to satisfy the fourth prong of Olano. We therefore decline to exercise our discretion to notice the Booker constitutional error here. 34 Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the district court are AFFIRMED.