Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
5-21-2008
USA v. Wagemann
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-1350
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Wagemann" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1177.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1177
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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
No. 07-1350
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MARK WAGEMANN,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
D.C. Criminal No. 06-cr-104
(Honorable Ronald L. Buckwalter)
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 15, 2008
Before: McKEE and GARTH, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ, District Judge *
(Filed: May 21, 2008 )
OPINION OF THE COURT
*
The Honorable Joseph H. Rodriguez, Senior District Judge for the United States
District Court, District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
RODRIGUEZ, District Judge.
Defendant Mark Wagemann appeals his conviction and judgment of sentence. We
have jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Wagemann’s attorney has
filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and has submitted a brief under Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Wagemann did not file a pro se brief. We will affirm.
I.
Beginning on November 2, 2005 and continuing until his December 16, 2005
arrest, from his home in Missouri, Wagemann corresponded via computer with an
undercover FBI agent posing as a fourteen year old girl from Philadelphia. Using instant
messaging, e-mail, and telephone, he arranged to meet the female individual for sex.
Wagemann was arrested in Philadelphia and held without bail. He was indicted on March
9, 2006, charged with using interstate communications to seduce a minor in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and with travel and attempt to travel with intent to engage in illicit
sexual conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Facing a maximum sentence of sixty
years imprisonment, Wagemann pled guilty to both counts of the indictment without a
plea agreement on May 31, 2006. Although Wagemann’s guideline range was calculated
at 46-57 months,1 he was sentenced to sixty months, the mandatory minimum term of
1
Wagemann’s counsel did not move for departure or variance from the calculated
guidelines, nor was a motion ever filed attacking the constitutionality of the statutes
charged in the indictment or the mandatory minimum penalty provided by statute.
2
imprisonment provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), as well as five years of supervised
release, a fine of $10,000 and a special assessment of $200.
II.
Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 109.2(a) provides: “[w]here, upon review of
the district court record, trial counsel is persuaded that the appeal presents no issue of
even arguable merit, trial counsel may file a motion to withdraw and supporting brief
pursuant to Anders v. California . . . .” Our inquiry when counsel submits an Anders brief
is “twofold: (1) whether counsel adequately fulfilled the rule’s requirements; and (2)
whether an independent review of the record presents any nonfrivolous issues.” 2 United
States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). In the Anders brief, Appellant
contends that the mandatory minimum sentence of sixty months required by 18 U.S.C. §
2422(b) is unconstitutional.
In United States v. Kellum, we rejected the argument that a district court has
authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum
even if it believes the statutory minimum is greater than necessary to achieve the goals of
sentencing. 356 F.3d 285, 289 (3d Cir. 2004). The two narrow exceptions in 18 U.S.C. §
2
“The duties of counsel when preparing an Anders brief are (1) to satisfy the court that
counsel has thoroughly examined the record in search of appealable issues, and (2) to
explain why the issues are frivolous.” United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir.
2001). “An appeal on a matter of law is frivolous where none of the legal points are
arguable on their merits.” Id. at 301.
3
3553(e) and (f) are “the only authority a district court has to depart below a mandatory
minimum sentence . . . .” Id. Neither is applicable here.
We are guided further by the requirement that we grant “substantial deference to
the broad authority that legislatures necessarily possess in determining the types and
limits of punishments for crimes,” United States v. Walker, 473 F.3d 71, 76 (3d Cir.
2007). In addition, we have “squarely addressed and rejected the argument that
mandatory sentences violate the doctrine of separation of powers and the Due Process
Clause.” Id. (citing United States v. MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006)).
Other circuits specifically have found that the minimum sentence mandated by
section 2422(b) does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. See, e.g., United
States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 148 (2d Cir. 2007). Nor is 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b)
unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Id.; United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 472-
73 (3d Cir. 2006) (also finding 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) constitutional in face of Commerce
Clause challenge); United States v. Thomas, 410 F.3d 1235, 1244 (10th Cir. 2005);
United States v. Dhingra, 371 F.3d 557, 563 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Panfil, 338
F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir.
2000).
In addition, Wagemann’s Due Process challenge is without merit. Through the
Presentence Report and the applicable statute, Wagemann had notice of both the factual
predicate and the potential punishment of his crime. At the time, 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)
4
provided for a “fine . . . and imprison[ment of] not less than 5 years and not more than 30
years.” 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b)(2006).3 See also United States v. Ausburn, 502 F.3d 313 (3d
Cir. 2007) (rejecting a due process challenge to a 144-month sentence for violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2422(b), but vacating and remanding because the district court did not provide a
statement of reasons sufficient for circuit to review for reasonableness).
Finally, the mandatory sentence imposed is not grossly disproportionate to the
gravity of Wagemann’s offenses so as to bring it within the purview of the Eighth
Amendment’s proportionality principle. See United States v. Munro, 394 F.3d 865, 873
(10th Cir. 2005) (considering the seriousness of attempted sexual abuse of a child, five-
year mandatory minimum sentence for using the Internet in attempt to persuade minor to
engage in sexual acts is not so grossly disproportionate to the crime as to constitute “cruel
and unusual punishment,” even for first offense). Our review of the record reveals, as
Appellant’s counsel contends, there are no non-frivolous issues. We therefore affirm the
conviction and judgment of sentence. Defense counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
3
The statute has since been amended to provide a mandatory minimum sentence of ten
years and a maximum sentence of life. See Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act of
2006, Pub.L. No. 109-248, § 203, 120 Stat. 587, 613 (July 27, 2006).
5