UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4276
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH C. BLEDSOE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-03-837)
Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 24, 2006
Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven M. Hisker, SWERLING LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Dean A. Eichelberger, Assistant United States Attorney,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph C. Bledsoe appeals his conviction and sentence for
knowingly publishing a notice over the Internet offering to
exchange child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2251(d)
(Supp. 2005). Bledsoe’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in his
opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although
concluding that such allegations lack merit, counsel asserts that
the district court erred in not granting Bledsoe’s motion to
dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the Child Pornography
Prevention Act of 1996 (“CPPA”) is unconstitutionally overbroad and
the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of the CPPA are grossly
disproportionate to the crime and therefore violate the Eighth
Amendment. Although Bledsoe was notified of his right to file a
supplemental pro se brief, he did not do so. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.
In the Anders brief, counsel asserts that the CPPA is
unconstitutionally overbroad in light of the Supreme Court’s
decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).
As the Court’s finding of a constitutional violation was limited to
provisions in the CPPA that extended the definition of child
pornography to include virtual images of child pornography, and the
provision to which Bledsoe pled guilty was unaffected, we find that
- 2 -
the district court did not err in denying Bledsoe’s motion to
dismiss on this ground.
Counsel also asserts that the mandatory minimum
sentencing provisions of the CPPA are grossly disproportionate to
the crime committed and therefore violate the Eighth Amendment
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This court has
ruled that “proportionality review is not available for any
sentence less than life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole.” United States v. Ming Hong, 242 F.3d 528, 532 & n.3 (4th
Cir. 2001). Because Bledsoe received a sentence of less than life
imprisonment, the proportionality of his sentence cannot be
reviewed on appeal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. We therefore affirm Bledsoe’s conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of
his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed,
but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on the client.
- 3 -
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -