Court Opinion

ID: 9389699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 00:00:23.726892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.035446
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10680       Document: 00516725006             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/25/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                    ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                     No. 22-10680
                                   Summary Calendar                                 FILED
                                   ____________                                 April 25, 2023
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                        Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                           versus

   Alden Brent Cooper,

                                             Defendant—Appellant.
                    ______________________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 1:21-CR-63-1
                    ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Alden Brent Cooper was found guilty after a bench trial of distributing
   and receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) and
   (b)(1). Cooper appeals his within guidelines sentence of 210 months of

          _____________________
          *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 22-10680      Document: 00516725006           Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/25/2023

                                     No. 22-10680

   imprisonment as well as his $5,000 assessment pursuant to the Justice for
   Victims of Trafficking Act (JVTA), 18 U.S.C. § 3014.
          Cooper failed to preserve his challenges, so we review for plain error.
   To demonstrate plain error, Cooper must make a showing of (1) a forfeited
   error (2) that is clear and obvious, and (3) that affects his substantial rights.
   Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he satisfies these three
   requirements, we have the discretion to remedy the error and should do so if
   it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial
   proceedings” generally. Id.
          Cooper first argues that he should have received a two-level reduction
   in his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(1). That provision
   applies, in relevant part, if the defendant’s “conduct was limited to the
   receipt or solicitation of material involving the sexual exploitation of a
   minor.” U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(1). Cooper asserts that his production of
   bestiality pornography does not bear any logical relationship to the offense of
   conviction and is not related to child pornography. To the contrary, when
   assessing the applicability of Section 2G2.2(b)(1), a district court need not
   limit its considerations to “the conduct expressly constituting the charged
   offense,” or even to “material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor.”
   United States v. Goluba, 672 F.3d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 2012). Rather, “the
   district court may consider acts in addition to the acts underlying the offense
   of conviction so long as those other acts constitute ‘relevant conduct’ as
   defined in the guidelines.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
   Cooper produced and possessed 27 videos of himself engaging in bestiality.
   These videos were found on multiple devices and were comingled with the
   child pornography. We cannot say the district court committed a clear or
   obvious error in relying on this conduct to deny Cooper a reduction under
   Section 2G2.2(b)(1).

                                              2
Case: 22-10680        Document: 00516725006              Page: 3      Date Filed: 04/25/2023

                                         No. 22-10680

           Cooper next contends that the district court erred when it denied him
   an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a)
   because he admitted his offense to a detective in a post-arrest interview.
   Cooper fails to show clear or obvious error given that he minimized his
   conduct in the post-arrest interview, proceeded to trial, and did not
   acknowledge his guilt during his presentence interview with the probation
   officer. See United States v. Medina-Anicacio, 325 F.3d 638, 648 (5th Cir.
   2003); United States v. Wilder, 15 F.3d 1292, 1299 (5th Cir. 1994);
   U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n.2.
           Cooper also asserts that the U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(6) enhancement for
   the use of a computer violated his due process rights because his base offense
   level already accounted for the use of computers to receive child
   pornography. Here, too, Cooper fails to show clear or obvious error, as we
   have previously rejected the argument he advances. See United States v.
   Roetcisoender, 792 F.3d 547, 553 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Richardson,
   713 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir. 2013). 1
           Finally, Cooper appeals the $5,000 assessment pursuant to the Justice
   for Victims of Trafficking Act, arguing that the district court did not find,
   either explicitly or implicitly, that he was “non-indigent” as required by the
   act. See 18 U.S.C. § 3014(a). Cooper in support notes that the district court
   at sentencing found that he lacked the financial resources or future earning
   capacity to pay a fine or the costs of incarceration as well as any assessment

           _____________________
           1
             The district court also stated that, even if its guidelines range calculation was
   incorrect, it would have imposed the same sentence based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors.
   In doing so, it referenced Cooper’s videos of bestiality, the number of prepubescent images
   involved in the offense, and Cooper’s likelihood of recidivism. Cooper therefore cannot
   show “a reasonable probability that, but for” any or all of the alleged sentencing errors,
   “he would have received a lesser sentence.” United States v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 821 F.3d
   659, 663-64 (5th Cir. 2016).

                                                    3
Case: 22-10680     Document: 00516725006           Page: 4   Date Filed: 04/25/2023

                                   No. 22-10680

   under the Amy, Vicky and Andy Child Pornography Victim Assessment Act.
   Given his prior employment history and his future ability to earn, which was
   set forth in the PSR and adopted by the district court, Cooper fails to show
   that the assessment was clear or obvious error. See United States v. Graves,
   908 F.3d 137, 141–44 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Pacheco-Alvarado,
   782 F.3d 213, 220 & n.30 (5th Cir. 2015).
         Cooper has not shown reversible plain error. See Puckett, 566 U.S. at
   135. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                               4