Opinion ID: 28413
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: been properly guided in its deliberations.”

Text: The Reedys raise two challenges to the jury Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 276 (5th Cir. instructions: (1) The instructions reflected the 1993) (citation and internal quotation multiplicitous counts and biased the jury by omitted). Even if the instructions are making the defendants appear twice as guilty. erroneous, we will not reverse if we determine, (2) Thomas Reedy argues that the court “based upon the entire record, that the erroneously instructed the jury that it only challenged instruction could not have affected need find he possessed one “visual depiction” the outcome of the case.” Johnson v. Sawyer, under count 89. We review each in turn. 120 F.3d 1307, 1315 (5th Cir.1997).
We review challenges to jury instructions The Reedys argue that including instructions on multiplicitous counts allowed the jury to find them guilty on counts deemed 13 (...continued) unconstitutional under the Double Jeopardy biguous, the rule of lenity may be applied. Adamo Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Reedys Wrecking Co. v. United States, 434 U.S. 275, reason that these instructions prejudiced the 284-285 (1978) (“[W]here there is ambiguity in a jury on all counts included in the indictment by criminal statute, doubts are resolved in favor of the making the Reedys “appear two times guiltier, defendant.”); Rewis v. United States, 401 U.S. with twice the opportunity for the jury to find 808, 812, (1971) (“[A]mbiguity concerning the ambit of criminal statutes should be resolved in guilt.” favor of lenity.”); Prestenbach, 230 F.3d at 784 n.23 (“If uncertainty remains after our The government argues that dismissing the interpretation of the text and its underlying multiplicitous counts would render any jury policies, the rule of lenity requires a narrow error harmless, because the court expressly construction of the law.”). instructed the jury to consider guilt on each count separately. The relevant jury 14 We emphasize that this case is limited to a instructions provided: security screening system that aggregates websites containing child pornography. We do not intimate A separate crime is charged in each a particular result where a website operator uses a count of the indictment. Each count and single site to aggregate and distribute individual the evidence pertaining to that count pictures. We are particularly loath so to hint, because child pornographers merely could change should be considered separately and in- their distribution methods if we announced a dividually. The fact that you may find bright-line rule. We conclude only, on the facts of the defendant under consideration guilty this unique case involving a middleman and se- or not guilty as to one or more counts curity screening system, that the court cannot should not control your verdict as to any sentence the Reedys based on each individual other count. picture posted. 9 Juries are presumed to follow instructions. 986, 900 (5th Cir. 1980), but failed to raise the See, e.g., Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, defense or object to the instruction.16 The 206 (1987) (collecting cases). The above in- court did not have an obligation to instruct on struction should have prevented the a non-element of the crime or on an affirmative multiplicative indictment from influencing the defense never presented. verdict on the valid counts. Id.; see also Dixon; United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d V. 723, 732 (5th Cir. 1995). A remand for The Reedys raise three objections to the resentencing will cure all error. sentence: (1) The relevant conduct calculations erroneously included revenue C. from both child pornography and (legal) adult Thomas Reedy argues that the jury pornography. (2) Thomas Reedy did not play instruction on count 89 permitted the jury to a leadership role in the offense. (3) The court convict on findings shy of what § failed to resolve all the sentencing objections. 2252A(a)(5)(b) requires.15 The instruction on count 89 stated that the jury had to find that A. “the defendant under consideration knowingly We review the application of sentencing possessed at least one visual depiction guidlelines de novo but findings of fact for containing an image or images of child clear error. United States v. Taylor, 277 F.3d pornography.” Thomas Reedy argues that § 721, 723 (5th Cir. 2001). A factual finding is 2252A(d), which creates an affirmative not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of defense to a charge of violating § 2252A- the record as a whole. United States v. Myers, (a)(5), requires finding that he possessed at 198 F.3d 160, 164 (5th Cir. 1999). We review least three images of child pornography. the application of FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(c) de According to Thomas Reedy, he possessed novo. United States v. Medina, 161 F.3d 867, only one itemSSa computer disc drive. 874 (5th Cir. 1998). Section 2252A(d) expressly states, B. however, that it is an affirmative defense. See The Reedys contend that the auditor United States v. Henriques, 234 F.3d 263, 264 incorrectly established their pecuniary gain as n.2 (5th Cir. 2000) (stating that § 2252A(d) $5,792,475.15, because this figure includes “gives the defendant an affirmative defense money generated from legal pornographic upon a showing that the defendant possessed websites. The Reedys argue that only fewer than three images”). Reedy bore the $1,290,412, which was earned from the webburden of raising and pleading the affirmative sites contained in the indictment, should be defense, United States v. Elorduy, 612 F.2d considered for establishing the sentencing en- 15 16 We do not find it necessary to vacate and “No party may assign as error any portion of remand under this count for possession under the charge or omission therefrom unless the party § 2252A. In Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. at objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its 1406, the Court merely restricted convictions under verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which that § 2252A to those the government previously could party objects and the grounds of the objection.” have obtained under § 2252. FED. R. CRIM. P. 30. 10 hancement under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(O). one offense level. The government answers The government responds the district court did that Reedy qualified because his criminal not include revenues from the adult enterprise involved more than five participants. pornography websites in its calculation but merely considered revenues from other child Under § 3B1.1(a), the offense level may be pornography sites. increased by four “if the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that Relevant conduct for which a defendant involved five or more participants or was was not charged or convicted may be otherwise extensive.” According to considered in determining the guideline range. application note 4, the sentencing court should See United States v. Taplette, 872 F.2d 101, consider 104 (5th Cir. 1989). According to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2), relevant conduct may be based the exercise of decision making on “all acts and omissions . . . that were part of authority, the nature of the participation the same course of conduct or common in the commission of the offense, the scheme or plan as to the offense of recruitment of accomplices, the claimed conviction.” right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of participation in The $5,792,475.15 represented the total planning or organizing the offense, the amount of pecuniary gain from all the child nature and scope of the illegal activity, pornography websites for which Landslide and the degree of control and authority operated its credit card verification system. exercise over others. The auditor testified that his analysis of Landslide's financial records showed U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, commen. (n. 4). $1,290,412 as the total proceeds from the websites named in the indictment. During the Reedy quotes Assistant United States Atsentencing process, however, a second torney Terri Moore’s opening statement to the government auditor conducted an audit of jury that “. . . subscribers or users . . . needed KeyZ’s financial records and determined that a middleman, that's where [Appellants] come Landslide had earned $5,792,475.15 from all in. They are a middleman.” Marshall also testhe websites containing child pornography for tified that “on the Internet, there’s a large which it provided a credit card verification group of customers, there’s a large group of system. The court properly considered those child pornography sites, and in the middle is sums when establishing the enhancement. landslide/keyz.com basically being the gatekeeper between those two components.” C. Thomas Reedy argues that the district court The government notes that under wrongfully found him to be a leader/organizer § 3B1.1(a), a defendant should receive a fourof criminal activity, resulting in a four-level level enhancement if he was an organizer or enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). leader of a criminal activity that involved five Reedy contends that he was only a or more participants or was otherwise “middleman,” so his total offense level under extensive. The presentence report (“PSR”) U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) should be decreased by sets forth the following in support of the 11 recommendation that Thomas Reedy be The Reedys argue that the district court erconsidered a leader/organizer: roneously permitted the presentation of additional evidence. They contend that their [T]his case involved a sophisticated, in- counsel “meticulously delineated additional ternational child pornography scheme objections to the PSR as having significant which earned in excess of $9,000,000. impact” but that the court “blatantly skirted The superseding Indictment in this case past the specific objections without expressly identified five participants in the ruling on them nor making finding of fact and conspiracy, including [Thomas Reedy], conclusions of law in accordance with Rule Janice Reedy, R.W. Kusuma, Boris 32(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Greenberg, and Hanny Ingganata . . . . Procedure.” Significantly, they do not explain [Thomas Reedy] held the position of what objections were made during sentencing. president within his company and directed the employees identified in Thomas Reedy made two objections to the paragraph 36. He also developed and PSR: (1) to the amount of revenue or implemented the services used to mass- pecuniary gain and (2) to the four-level market the child pornography. For increase for his management role in the these reasons, the 4 level enhancement offense. Janice Reedy objected to the revenue for being an organizer or leader of a calculations, to a two-level increase for criminal activity that involved five or obstruction of justice, and to the denial of a remore participants or was otherwise duction for her minimal role in the offense. In extensive is warranted in this case. each of the sentencing hearings, the court either overruled or sustained every objection No one challenges the following facts: made by the Reedys and adopted the factual (1) The criminal activity involved at least five findings in the PSR. The court sustained knowing participants. (2) The crime involved Janice Reedy’s objection to the obstruction of the transportation, for remuneration, of child justice two-level increase and granted a fourpornography all over the world via the Inter- level decrease for her minimal role in the net. (3) Thomas Reedy ran the operation: He offense. developed and implemented the KeyZ service for the purpose of mass marketing child After overruling Janice Reedy’s objection pornography to interested subscribers; he to the pecuniary gain calculation, the court actively recruited Webmasters to utilize KeyZ asked her whether she had any objection or by promising increased profits by tracking evidence to offer regarding the court’s subscribers interested in child pornography; if tentative findings. She answered in the a webmaster failed to follow the rules negative. Therefore, the court adopted the established by Thomas Reedy for KeyZ, Reedy statements of fact made in the PSR as its final determined whether the Webmaster would be findings of fact, subject to and including cut off from the system. The district court had changes and qualifications made by the court ample evidence to dub Reedy a leader or in response to the objections as announced. organizer. We cannot identify any issues the court failed to resolve at sentencing. D. 12