[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 28, 2011
No. 09-15838 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 08-00096-CR- ORL-28-DAB
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JACOB PAUL MARSHALL,
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 28, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jacob Paul Marshall appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed after
he pleaded guilty to attempted receipt, receipt, and possession of child
pornography. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
I. Background
During an investigation into child pornography, the FBI received a list of
subscribers to websites containing child pornography or erotica. This list included
Marshall’s name. The FBI alerted U.S. Postal Inspectors, who then sent Marshall
a brochure of sexually explicit DVDs available for purchase. Marshall ordered
items involving preteen girls, pedophilia, and young teen girls. The Postal Service
mailed Marshall the DVDs he ordered and then executed a search of his residence
pursuant to a warrant. Marshall waived his rights, cooperated with authorities, and
admitted searching the web for child pornography and attempting to subscribe to
websites. He also admitted that he saved child pornography onto at least one CD
or DVD. Authorities obtained a warrant to search Marshall’s computer and found
that Marshall had stored child pornography on 30 of his CDs or DVDs and had
over 100 movie files and 1,000 picture files containing child pornography.
Marshall was indicted for and pleaded guilty to attempted receipt and
receipt of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(B) and possession
of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B).
In preparing the presentence investigation report (PSI), the probation officer
calculated Marshall’s guideline range using a base offense level of 22 under
2
U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2, with a 2-level increase for the use of a computer under
§ 2G2.2(b)(6). The resulting guideline range was 97 to 121 months’
imprisonment. At sentencing, Marshall requested, for the first time, that he
receive a psychosexual evaluation. The court continued the sentencing hearing to
allow for an evaluation.
Barbara Mara, a licensed psychologist, conducted the evaluation and
concluded that Marshall had problems with impulse control and was addicted to
pornography and sex. At the next sentencing hearing, Marshall testified and
requested a downward departure from the guideline range. The government
opposed any reduction based on Marshall’s history and the results of the
evaluation.
The court discussed the factors it considered and noted that it had been
critical of the guidelines in past child pornography cases. But the court found that
the nature and circumstances of Marshall’s case were very serious and there were
questions about the likelihood of recidivism. The court noted that Marshall had
been accused of, but not convicted of, molestation in the past and this had not
stopped Marshall’s interest in child pornography. Considering the totality of the
circumstances, the court concluded that a sentence within the guideline range was
reasonable. The court then sentenced Marshall to 98 months’ imprisonment.
3
Marshall now appeals, challenging his conviction and sentence on three grounds:
First, Marshall argues that the district court plainly erred by increasing his offense
level under § 2G2.2(b)(6) for using a computer in the commission of the offense
because he used the computer solely to play discs containing pornography.
Second, he argues that the district court erred by failing to depart from the
guideline range. Third, he argues that 18 U.S.C. § 2252(A) is unconstitutionally
overbroad because it gives equivalent sentences to distributors and recipients of
child pornography. We address each issue in turn.
II. Discussion
A. Application of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(6)
We review the interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines
de novo, and review the district court’s factual findings for clear error. United
States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235, 1247-48 (11th Cir. 2008). Where a defendant
did not timely raise a claim of error before the district court, however, we review
only for plain error. United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir.
2005). “An appellate court may not correct an error the defendant failed to raise in
the district court unless there is: (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects
substantial rights.” Id. (citing United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002))
(internal quotations omitted). If all three factors are met, we may exercise
4
discretion and correct the error if it “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of the judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted). In order to meet the second prong of the plain error test, an error must
be “clear under current law.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993).
At the time of Marshall’s sentencing, § 2G2.2(b)(6) provided in part that the
sentencing court should increase a defendant’s offense level by two “[i]f the
offense involved the use of a computer or an interactive computer service for the
possession, transmission, receipt, or distribution of the material.” U.S.S.G.
§ 2G2.2(b)(6). It did not explicitly address whether merely using the computer to
view child pornography was sufficient to qualify for the enhancement. In 2009,
after Marshall’s sentencing, the section was amended to add, “or for accessing
with intent to view the material.” Id. “Where the explicit language of a statute or
rule does not specifically resolve an issue, there can be no plain error where there
is no precedent from the Supreme Court or [us] directly resolving it.” United
States v. Lejarde-Rada, 319 F.3d 1288, 1291 (11th Cir. 2003). Therefore, because
the version of § 2G2.2(b)(6) in effect at the time of sentencing did not definitively
answer the question raised here, there was no plain error in the application of
§ 2G2.2(b)(6).
Moreover, the PSI stated that Marshall admitted to law enforcement that he
5
used a file sharing program on his computer to search for child pornography and
saved it to a disc. Marshall did not object to this factual assertion in the PSI, and
therefore, for the purposes of sentencing, Marshall admitted using his computer
for the receipt of child pornography through a file sharing program. United States
v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[i]t is the law of this circuit that a
failure to object to allegations of fact in a PSI admits those facts for sentencing
purposes.”). Accordingly, the court’s application of § 2G2.2(b)(6) was proper.
B. Departing from the Guideline Range
In United States v. Winingear, 422 F.3d 1241, 1245 (11th Cir. 2005), we
held that we are without jurisdiction to consider a defendant’s appeal of a
discretionary decision of the district court not to apply a downward departure, so
long as the district court did not incorrectly believe that it lacked the authority to
apply a departure. Id. The record here shows that the district court was aware of
its authority but did not believe the facts of the case warranted a departure.
Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this issue.
C. Constitutionality of § 2252A
When a constitutional challenge is raised for the first time on appeal, we
generally review only for plain error. United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276,
1282-1283 (11th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Walker, 59 F.3d 1196, 1198
6
(11th Cir. 1995).
Marshall’s brief fails to set forth the basis of his constitutional claim. The
crux of his argument is that the “statute applies equally to those who receive the
images and to those who send them.”
Section 2252A(a)(2)(B) provides that
any person who knowingly receives or distributes any material that
contains child pornography that has been mailed, or using any means
or facility of interstate or foreign commerce shipped or transported in
or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including
by computer [is subject to criminal prosecution].
We have not yet addressed whether §§ 2252A(a)(2)(B) and (a)(5)(B) are
overbroad. The Supreme Court has held, however, that § 2252A(a)(3)(B), which
criminalizes any act that knowingly “advertises promotes, presents, distributes, or
solicits” child pornography, or materials believed to be child pornography, is not
overbroad. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 292-293 (2008).
We construe Marshall’s constitutional challenge to be one of equal
protection and proportionality. Although the explicit language of the Equal
Protection Clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to the
states, United States v. Houston, 456 F.3d 1328, 1335 n.5 (11th Cir. 2006), “the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment impliedly imposes the same
7
obligations on the federal government as does the Equal Protection Clause on the
states[.]” Id. Where the statute at issue “does not discriminate on the basis of a
suspect classification or the exercise of a fundamental right,” the appropriate
standard of review for an equal protection claim is the rational basis test. United
States v. Solomon, 848 F.2d 156, 157 (11th Cir. 1988). “To pass the rational basis
test, the legislation must have a legitimate purpose, and it must have been
reasonable for lawmakers to believe that the use of the challenged classification
would promote that purpose.” United States v. King, 972 F.2d 1259, 1260 (11th
Cir. 1992).
The Eighth Amendment provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be
required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment
inflicted.” U.S. Const. Amend. VIII. “In non-capital cases, the Eighth
Amendment encompasses, at most, only a narrow proportionality principle.”
United States v. Brant, 62 F.3d 367, 368 (11th Cir. 1995). To determine whether
an Eighth Amendment violation has occurred, we first must make “a threshold
determination that the sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate to the
offense.” Id. After we determine that the sentence is grossly disproportionate, we
must consider the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction,
and the sentences imposed for the same crime in other jurisdictions. Id. “Outside
8
the context of capital punishment, successful challenges to the proportionality of
sentences are exceedingly rare,” largely because we “accord substantial deference
to Congress[’s] . . . broad authority to determine the types and limits of
punishments for crimes.” United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th Cir.
2005) (citations and quotations omitted). “In general, a sentence within the limits
imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth
Amendment.” United States v. Johnson, 451 F.3d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 2006)
We conclude that § 2252A(a)(2)(B) and (b)(1) do not violate equal
protection by treating distribution and receipt as equivalent offenses. There is a
rational basis for treating the two types of offenders similarly; the receipt of child
pornography, like its distribution, is an act “in furtherance of abuse of children.”
Nor do the statutes violate notions of proportionality. Marshall did not
demonstrate that his sentences were grossly disproportionate to his offenses. His
sentences were well below the statutory maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment,
indicating they were neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth
Amendment. In sum, we see no evidence that §§ 2252A(a)(2)(B) and (b)(1) are
unconstitutional.
AFFIRMED.
9