Court Opinion

ID: 9892903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 15:00:53.89917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:02.002514
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12539    Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 10/25/2023   Page: 1 of 10

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]

                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-12539
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        MICHAEL ADAM CARMODY,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-14018-AMC-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12539     Document: 33-1    Date Filed: 10/25/2023   Page: 2 of 10

        2                    Opinion of the Court                22-12539

                           ____________________

                                  No. 22-13542
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        MICHAEL ADAM CARMODY,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-14018-AMC-1
                           ____________________

        Before JILL PRYOR, ABUDU and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Appellant Michael Adam Carmody appeals his convictions
        for distributing, receiving, and possessing child pornography and
USCA11 Case: 22-12539        Document: 33-1         Date Filed: 10/25/2023        Page: 3 of 10

        22-12539                  Opinion of the Court                               3

        his subsequent sentence. 1 Carmody argues that the district court
        erred in denying his motion to suppress all evidence seized from
        the warrantless search of his internet protocol (“IP”) address. Car-
        mody also appeals the district court’s imposition of a 300-month
        sentence, which was an upward variance from the guideline term
        of 210 to 262 months. Carmody asserts that his sentence is proce-
        durally unreasonable because the district court relied on Sentenc-
        ing Guidelines Commentary even though the text of the Guideline
        was unambiguous. He also argues that his sentence is substan-
        tively unreasonable because the district court failed to properly bal-
        ance the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, giving too much weight to de-
        terrence and the seriousness of his offense and not enough weight
        to mitigating factors. Having read the parties’ briefs and reviewed
        the record, we affirm Carmody’s convictions and sentence.
                                              I.

        1 Carmody timely filed a notice of appeal after the district court entered its

        initial judgment on July 15, 2022, which resulted in the docketing of case num-
        ber 22-12539-HH. Carmody filed another timely notice of appeal on October
        11, 2022, after the court entered an amended judgment establishing the
        amount of restitution to the victims in this case. That appeal resulted in the
        docketing of case number 22-13542-HH. Carmody filed an unopposed motion
        to consolidate the appeals and the briefing schedule, and the clerk granted the
        motion. On appeal, Carmody does not challenge the amount of restitution
        ordered by the district court, so any argument regarding that judgment is
        deemed abandoned. See United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871 (11th Cir.
        2022) (issues not raised on appeal are deemed abandoned), cert. denied, ___
        U.S. ___, 143 S. Ct. 95 (2022).
USCA11 Case: 22-12539         Document: 33-1          Date Filed: 10/25/2023         Page: 4 of 10

        4                          Opinion of the Court                        22-12539

               We review a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress
        evidence under a mixed standard, reviewing the court’s fact-finding
        for clear error and its application of the law to those facts de novo.
        United States v. Trader, 981 F.3d 961, 966 (11th Cir. 2020). We con-
        strue all facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party be-
        low. Id.
               The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable
        searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. To suppress evi-
        dence based on Fourth Amendment violations, “a claimant has the
        burden of proving (1) that the search was unlawful and (2) that the
        claimant had a legitimate expectation of privacy.” United States v.
        McKennon, 814 F.2d 1539, 1542 (11th Cir. 1987). “Ordinarily, a per-
        son lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in information he has
        voluntarily disclosed to a third party.” Trader, 981 F.3d at 967 (re-
        ferring to the third-party doctrine). In Trader, we held that the Car-
        penter exception 2 to the third-party doctrine does not extend to IP
        addresses. Trader, 981 F.3d at 967-68.
                Under the prior panel precedent rule, we are bound to fol-
        low our own prior binding precedent until it is overruled by the
        Supreme Court or this Court sitting en banc. United States v. Vega-
        Castillo, 540 F.3d 1235, 1236 (11th Cir. 2008). “The prior panel

        2 In Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018), the Supreme

        Court held that the “unique nature of cell phone location records” subjected
        them to Fourth Amendment protection; however, the Court noted that its
        decision was “a narrow one” and did not impact “business records that might
        incidentally reveal location information.” Id. at ___, 138 S. Ct. at 2220.
USCA11 Case: 22-12539      Document: 33-1       Date Filed: 10/25/2023     Page: 5 of 10

        22-12539               Opinion of the Court                          5

        precedent rule applies regardless of whether the later panel be-
        lieves the prior panel’s opinion to be correct, and there is no excep-
        tion to the rule where the prior panel failed to consider arguments
        raised before a later panel.” United States v. Gillis, 938 F.3d 1181,
        1198 (11th Cir. 2019).
               The record demonstrates that the district court did not err
        in denying the motion to suppress evidence. Individuals do not
        have a reasonable expectation of privacy in IP addresses. Trader,
        981 F.3d at 967-68. Carmody’s argument is foreclosed by our prior
        precedent, so the evidence obtained from his IP address is admissi-
        ble. Gillis, 938 F.3d at 1198; Vega-Castillo, 540 F.3d at 1236. Thus,
        we affirm Carmody’s convictions.
                                          II.
                When reviewing a sentence for procedural reasonableness,
        we consider legal issues de novo and view factual findings for clear
        error. United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621, 624 (11th Cir. 2010).
        A district court’s interpretation and application of the Guidelines is
        reviewed de novo. United States v. Tejas, 868 F.3d 1242, 1244 (11th
        Cir. 2017). We must ensure that the district court did not make a
        significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate or improp-
        erly calculating the Guidelines range. United States v. Grushko, 50
        F.4th 1, 17 (11th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 143 S. Ct.
        2594 (June 5, 2023), ___ U.S. ___, 143 S. Ct. 2680 (June 26, 2023).
        Unless the text of the Guidelines is ambiguous, we do not defer to
        the Guidelines Commentary. United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269,
        1276-77 (11th Cir. 2023) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 22-12539      Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 10/25/2023     Page: 6 of 10

        6                      Opinion of the Court                22-12539

               Carmody argues that the district court erroneously relied on
        the commentary to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 to calculate the number of
        images for which he was responsible and thus imposed a procedur-
        ally unreasonable sentence. The image table provides for a 5-level
        increase if a defendant possesses “600 or more images” of child por-
        nography. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D). The commentary con-
        tains additional guidance regarding how to calculate the number of
        images in a video: “Each video, video-clip, movie, or similar visual
        depiction shall be considered to have 75 images. If the length of
        the visual depiction is substantially more than 5 minutes, an up-
        ward departure may be warranted.” Id. at cmt (n.6.(B)(ii)). Car-
        mody contends that he should be held accountable for 414 images
        because the text of the guideline unambiguously requires that each
        video count only as one “image.” The government responds that
        the district court properly calculated the number of images based
        on Carmody’s possession of 226 still photographs of child pornog-
        raphy and 188 videos of child pornography. It posits that the stat-
        utory definitions upon which Carmody relies only articulate the
        types of files that can constitute child pornography; they have noth-
        ing to do with quantity and thus cannot bear upon the calculation.
        Because the word “image” is ambiguous, the government claims
        that the district court properly relied on the commentary to calcu-
        late the number of images for which Carmody was responsible.
                The record shows that the district court’s sentence is proce-
        durally reasonable because U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 is ambiguous, and the
        district court could defer to the commentary. Dupree, 57 F.4th at
        1276-77. The text of § 2G2.2 does not distinguish between a still
USCA11 Case: 22-12539     Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 10/25/2023    Page: 7 of 10

        22-12539              Opinion of the Court                        7

        image and a video comprised of a series of images, so the term “im-
        ages” is ambiguous for the purposes of calculating the total number
        of images possessed by an offender who possesses videos. Further,
        because the statues that Congress relies on to define “images” lists
        various image formats but fail to indicate how each format should
        be tallied, it was necessary for the Sentencing Commission to de-
        velop a method to calculate the number of images contained in a
        video. In addition, the government’s expert testified that, when
        calculating videos based on the typical standard of frame rate, a
        video lasting 5 minutes and 43 seconds contained 8,575 images, the
        Sentencing Commission’s interpretation that each video contains
        75 images represents a “fair and considered judgment” that does
        not unjustly penalize offenders. See Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. ___,
        139 S. Ct. 2400, 2416-18 (2019) (clarifying when courts should defer
        to agency interpretations of ambiguous regulations).
               Moreover, if the 75:1 ratio established by the Sentencing
        Commission is not entitled to deference, the district court’s sen-
        tence remains procedurally reasonable. The district court heard
        testimony and made an express finding that the “record amply sup-
        ports the application of the enhancement in this case, given the nu-
        merous quantity of videos, some of which are quite lengthy and
        would very easily exceed the. . . 600 image threshold.” The district
        court concluded that Congress mandated that the Guidelines pro-
        vide for incremental enhancements depending on the number of
        images of child pornography. Because Carmody possessed 188 vid-
        eos, there is no question that he possessed over 600 images of child
USCA11 Case: 22-12539       Document: 33-1       Date Filed: 10/25/2023     Page: 8 of 10

        8                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12539

        pornography, even counting each of the videos as only two images
        each. Accordingly, we affirm as to this issue.
                                          III.
               When reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we con-
        sider the totality of the circumstances under a deferential abuse-of-
        discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct.
        586, 597 (2007). The party challenging a sentence bears the burden
        of proving that the sentence is unreasonable considering the rec-
        ord, the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the substantial def-
        erence afforded sentencing courts. United States v. Rosales-Bruno,
        789 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 2015).
               The weight given to any specific § 3553(a) factor is commit-
        ted to the sound discretion of the district court, and we will not
        substitute our judgment in weighing the relevant factors.
        Rosales-Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254. The district court abuses its discre-
        tion when it “(1) fails to afford consideration to relevant factors that
        were due significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an im-
        proper or irrelevant factor, or (3) commits a clear error of judgment
        in considering the proper factors.” United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d
        1160, 1189 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quotation marks omitted).
               Carmody argues that the district court’s imposition of a 300-
        month sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district
        court did not consider the mitigating factors of his difficult upbring-
        ing when it weighed the § 3553(a) factors. Carmody also asserts
        that the district court erred because it failed to impose a propor-
        tional sentence when compared to other similarly situated
USCA11 Case: 22-12539      Document: 33-1      Date Filed: 10/25/2023     Page: 9 of 10

        22-12539               Opinion of the Court                         9

        offenders. The government responds that the district court was
        well within its discretion in concluding that an upward variance
        was warranted after considering the totality of the circumstances
        and the depravity of Carmody’s conduct.
                The record supports the district court’s upward variance
        from the Sentencing Guidelines; thus, the sentence is substantively
        reasonable. The district court adopted the Guidelines range but
        found that Carmody’s “depraved actions” warranted an upward
        variance from the advisory guideline range. The district court re-
        lied on the “substantial quantities of sadistic images” featuring “ba-
        bies and toddlers who were heard screaming on the videos being
        raped and horrifically victimized” to impose the upward variance.
        The district court gave great weight to the factors of deterrence
        and protecting the public, finding that Carmody’s “dangerous de-
        sire to harm children” created “a very strong and palpable need” to
        impose a substantial sentence. The district court considered the
        § 3553(a) factors before concluding that the “extreme seriousness”
        of Carmody’s “truly unspeakable” offenses outweighed the miti-
        gating factors of his troubled upbringing and current familial sup-
        port.
               Although Carmody’s sentence is an upward variance above
        the recommended guideline range, the sentence does not create a
        definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
        clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors. Irey, 612
        F.3d at 1189. Because Carmody fails to show that the district court
        abused its discretion in weighing the factors of deterrence, the
USCA11 Case: 22-12539     Document: 33-1     Date Filed: 10/25/2023   Page: 10 of 10

        10                    Opinion of the Court                22-12539

        nature and circumstances of the offense, and the seriousness of the
        offense more heavily, we affirm Carmody’s sentence. Rosales-
        Bruno, 789 F.3d at 1254.
              Accordingly, based on the aforementioned reasons, we af-
        firm Carmody’s convictions and his 300-month sentence.
              AFFIRMED.