Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-28-2008
USA v. Long
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3549
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Long" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1132.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1132
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case No: 06-3549
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
RODERICK LONG,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 04-CR-159
District Judge: The Honorable Gustave Diamond
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
May 20, 2008
Before: SMITH, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges,
and STAFFORD, District Judge *
(Filed: May 28, 2008)
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Roderick Long, pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement containing a waiver of
*
The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., Senior United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, pleaded guilty to count two of a four-count
superceding indictment on March 8, 2006. Count two charged Long with violating 18
U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) by knowingly receiving by computer visual depictions of a minor
engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania sentenced Long to 121 months of imprisonment. In addition, the District
Court imposed a term of supervised release, for life, with conditions, inter alia, that
limited Long’s access to computers and to certain materials depicting or describing
sexually explicit conduct as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2). This timely appeal
followed.1
Long’s appeal raises two issues: (1) whether, pursuant to an explicit reservation in
his plea agreement, the District Court correctly calculated the offense level used in
computing his sentencing guideline range; and (2) whether the District Court erred by
imposing as conditions of his period of supervised release the limitations of his computer
use and his access to materials depicting or describing sexually explicit conduct. The
government contends that Long’s appellate waiver bars our review of the terms of
supervised release imposed by the District Court. We agree.
In United States v. Khattak, 273 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 2001), we held that “waivers of
appeals, if entered into knowingly and voluntarily, are valid.” Id. at 562. Long does not
1
The District Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Appellate
jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). See United States v.
Cooper, 437 F.3d 324, 327-28 (3d Cir. 2006).
2
contend that his waiver was unenforceable because it was either unknowing or
involuntary.2 Instead, Long argues that the conditions of his supervised release may be
considered on appeal because the appellate waiver, which must be strictly construed
under Khattak, pertained to only the length of his confinement and the period of
supervised release. In addition, he asserts that conditions at issue here were excepted
from the appellate waiver because they do not appear among the mandatory and
discretionary conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).
In interpreting the scope of the appellate waiver, we are mindful that 18 U.S.C. §
3583(a) provides that “[t]he court, in imposing a sentence to a term of imprisonment for a
felony . . . may include as a part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be
placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment.” Id. (emphasis added).
Subsection (c) of this statutory provision specifies certain mandatory and discretionary
conditions of supervised release that a defendant must comply with during any such term
of supervision. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). This subsection further provides that “[t]he court
2
We note that Long might have argued that his appellate waiver was unenforceable as the
District Court did not fully comply with the directive in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11(b)(N), which requires a district court to “inform the defendant of, and determine that the
defendant understands . . . the terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to
appeal.” Long waived any such argument, however. Laborers’ Int’l Union v. Foster Wheeler
Corp., 26 F.3d 375, 398 (3d Cir. 1994) (observing that “an issue is waived unless a party raises it
in its opening brief”); Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993) (observing that
“where an issue is raised for the first time in a reply brief, we deem it insufficiently preserved for
review before this court”). For that reason, we find the appellate waiver is enforceable and we
will not review Long’s challenge to the conditions of supervised release unless the waiver fails
to encompass this claim.
3
may order, as a further condition of supervised release . . . any other condition it considers
to be appropriate.” Id. Thus, the duration and the conditions of supervised release are
components of a sentence. By waiving his right to take a direct appeal of his sentence,
Long waived his right to challenge the conditions of his supervised release, which were
part of that sentence.
The appellate waiver, however, does not bar our review of whether the District
Court erred in calculating his offense level inasmuch as the plea agreement explicitly
reserved that issue for appeal. Long contends that the District Court erred by concluding
that U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(c)’s cross-reference applied. The cross-reference comes into play
“[i]f the offense involved causing, transporting, permitting or offering or seeking by
notice or advertisement, a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of
producing a visual depiction of such conduct . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(c). According to
Long, the cross-reference had no bearing on his offense level because his instant
messages neither caused the production of child pornography nor constituted a “notice.”
We find no error in the District Court’s application of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(c)’s cross-
reference. The plain text of the guideline demonstrates that Long did not have to cause
the production of child pornography. Rather, the cross-reference applies to a broad range
of conduct, including “seeking by notice,” and this record establishes that Long’s instant
messages requested “pics” of the minor. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(c), and application note 5.
We agree with the Tenth Circuit’s analysis in United States v. Garcia, 411 F.3d 1173
4
(10th Cir. 2005), which rejected a narrow interpretation of the cross-reference. The
Garcia Court explained that the “conduct the guideline seeks to punish is not only the
actual production of child pornography, but the active solicitation for the production of
such images.” Id. at 1179.
Long’s argument that his instant messages did not qualify as “notice” under the
cross-reference also lacks merit. As Long concedes, we rejected a similar argument in
United States v. Harrison, 357 F.3d 314 (3d Cir. 2004). There, we concluded that the
term “notice” encompassed “the communication of information to another party” and that
Harrison’s e-mail constituted a notice for purposes of a related provision in guideline
§ 2G2.2. Because Long’s instant messages requested “pics” of the minor and conveyed
information to another party, we conclude that these instant messages also constituted
“notice” under § 2G2.2(c)’s cross-reference.
We will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
5