United States v. Cunningham , 191 F. App'x 670 ( 2006 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
July 28, 2006
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 05-8077
(D. W yoming)
BILLY CUNNINGHAM , (D.Ct. No. 04-CR-213-B)
Defendant - Appellant.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before H E N RY, BR ISC OE, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
After pleading guilty to one count of attempted child exploitation in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e), Billy Cunningham w as sentenced to,
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
inter alia, 180 months imprisonment, the statutory minimum. He challenges the
length of his sentence, claiming the statutory minimum violates his Eighth
Amendment constitutional rights and the separation of powers doctrine.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM .
I. Background
After four years in the United States Navy and twenty-four years as an
employee of the United States Postal Service, Billy Cunningham retired and
accepted a part-time position at Lowe’s Home Improvement Center in Kingston,
M assachusetts. After his retirement, Cunningham purchased a computer for his
personal use. On September 28, 2004, Cunningham entered a “Yahoo!” chat
room identified for “11-13 year olds O NLY.” H e initiated communication with
“kaylac93,” w ho purported to be an eleven-year-old girl. Unbeknownst to
Cunningham, “kaylac93" was the moniker of an undercover United States
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer, Special A gent Nicole
Balliet.
Cunningham invited “kaylac93" into a private chat room where he asked
whether she owned a digital camera and discussed the possibility of her sending
him nude pictures of herself. He also expressed a willingness to travel to
W yoming to engage in sexual activity with her. Later the same day, he initiated
an instant message discussion for approximately two hours. He again discussed
engaging in sexual acts and stated he was comfortable with her age. He e-mailed
-2-
nude pictures of himself during the instant message conversation and discussed
his desire that she reciprocate. The ICE agent was able to obtain Cunningham’s
personal identifying information from the e-mail address.
Approximately one week later, Cunningham again initiated an instant
message conversation. He again discussed traveling to Cheyenne, W yoming, to
engage in sexual activity and informed her he would be sending her a digital
camera to take photographs in various stages of undress. He also offered to send
her intimate apparel. Later, he sent an e-mail confirming he had mailed the
camera. Cunningham’s next e-mail promised her he would mail thong and g-
string underw ear.
Agent Balliet received the camera on October 11, 2004. 1 After a search of
Cunningham’s residence, agents found the receipt for the camera. Cunningham
acknowledged his actions and provided agents with various photographs of
underage girls, some of w hich were classified as child pornography. He also
admitted he had met a teenage girl on the Internet who lived in San Antonio,
Texas, and he had been discussing sexual topics with her in the same manner as
his conversations with “kaylac93.” 2 Seizure of Cunningham’s computer revealed
1
The presentence report lists receipt of the camera occurring on October 11, 2005
and the search of Cunningham’s residence on December 9, 2005. Given that
Cunningham was indicted in November 2004, and pled guilty in May 2005, we assume
the reference to dates later in 2005 are typographical errors. In any event, the dates do
not affect our analysis.
2
This contact was another ICE agent.
-3-
fifteen to twenty images of child pornography.
Cunningham w as indicted for attempted child exploitation and entered a
plea of guilty to the charge on M ay 16, 2005. The plea agreement provided that
(1) the November 1, 2003 Guidelines M anual be used, (2) the intended victim was
eleven years old, and (3) Cunningham used a computer in connection with the
offense. The plea agreement also identified USSG § 2G2.1 as the appropriate
guideline for determining his advisory sentence. A presentence report was
prepared, to which there were no objections. The report calculated Cunningham’s
base offense level at twenty-seven. An additional four offense levels were added
because his intended victim was eleven years old and another two because he used
a computer in the commission of his offense. Three offense levels were deducted
because Cunningham timely accepted responsibility, resulting in a final offense
level of thirty. Because Cunningham had no prior criminal history, he qualified
for Criminal History Category I. Under this calculation, the applicable advisory
guideline sentence ranged from 97 to 121 months imprisonment. However, the
statutory minimum sentence required imprisonment for 180 months.
At sentencing, Cunningham did not object to the guideline calculations but
lodged a general constitutional objection to the statutory minimum sentence.
Cunningham did not ask the court to consider his sentence unconstitutional
because it violated the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment or
because it violated the separation of powers doctrine. The district court noted the
-4-
disparity between the guideline range and the minimum mandatory sentence
required by statute. It expressed its frustration with the seemingly conflicting
Congressional instructions and, with regret, imposed the 180 month mandatory
minimum. This timely appeal followed.
II. Discussion
1. Eighth Amendment
Cunningham contends “[t]he mandatory minimum of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)
and (e) may not be unconstitutional per se, but it is grossly disproportionate as
applied to [him] and is, therefore, unconstitutional.” (A ppellant’s Br. at 16.)
N orm ally, w e review de novo whether a criminal sentence violates the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. United States v.
Angelos, 433 F.3d 738, 750 (10th Cir. 2006). In this case, however, because
Cunningham raised only a vague and non-specific objection, we review his claim
for plain error. United States v. Yazzie, 407 F.3d 1139, 1144 (10th Cir.) (en
banc), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 303 (2005). To find plain error, we must find (1)
error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4)
seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings. United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727, 732 (10th Cir.) (en
banc), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 495 (2005). W e apply the plain error standard of
review less rigidly when reviewing a potential constitutional error. Id.Nonetheless, we need only address the first prong of the plain error test here.
-5-
The Eighth Amendment provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required,
nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” In
determining whether a sentence for a period of years constitutes cruel or unusual
punishment (rather than the manner of punishment), the Supreme Court has
recognized, “[t]he Eighth Amendment . . . contains a narrow proportionality
principle that applies to noncapital sentences.” Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11,
20 (2003) (internal quotation omitted). The Court has acknowledged it has “not
established a clear or consistent path for courts to follow” when faced with a
proportionality question. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72 (2003). W e know ,
however, the Eighth Amendment “does not require strict proportionality between
crime and sentence, . . . . forbid[ding] only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly
disproportionate’ to the crime.” Ewing, 538 U.S. at 11-12 (quoting Harmelin v.
M ichigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment)). Thus, “[t]he gross disproportionality principle
reserves a constitutional violation for only the extraordinary case.” Lockyer, 538
U.S. at 77. This is not such a case.
An appellant has a high hurdle to overcome to demonstrate his sentence
violates the Eighth Amendment. In Angelos, we catalogued the Supreme Court
precedent rejecting Eighth A mendment claims based on prison sentences for a
-6-
term of years. Angelos, 433 F.3d at 750-51. 3 Cunningham does not explain how
the fifteen years imprisonment he received for attempting to sexually abuse an
eleven year old girl is any more grossly disproportionate than a forty year
sentence for possession and use of marijuana. See Hutto, 454 U.S. at 375.
Cunningham argues, “[t]o insure justice and equity, . . . it is vital that the
sentencing judge have a manner and means by which he can identify the
defendant as an individual.” (Appellant’s Br. at 15.) W hile this may be a
heartfelt belief, the Supreme Court has “drawn the line of required individualized
3
[T]he Supreme Court has rejected Eighth Amendment
challenges to the following sentences:
• A life sentence, with the possibility of parole, under a Texas recidivist
statute for successive convictions of (1) fraudulent use of a credit card to
obtain $80 worth of goods or services, (2) passing a forged check in the
amount of $28.36, and (3) obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses. Rummel v.
Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 285 (1980).
• A forty-year sentence for possession and distribution of 9 ounces of
marijuana. Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 375 (1982).
• A life sentence, without the possibility of parole, for possession of more
than 650 grams of cocaine. Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1005.
• A twenty-five year to life sentence imposed under a California recidivist
statute for the offense of felony grand theft (i.e., stealing three golf clubs
worth approximately $1,200). Ewing, 538 U.S. at 30-31.
• Two consecutive twenty-five-year to life sentences under a California
recidivist statute for two counts of petty theft. Lockyer, 538 U.S. at 77.
Angelos, 433 F.3d at 750-51.
-7-
sentencing at capital cases, and see[s] no basis for extending it further.”
Harm elin, 501 U.S. at 996. M oreover, “[t]here can be no serious contention . . .
that a sentence which is not otherw ise cruel and unusual becomes so simply
because it is ‘mandatory.’” Id. at 995.
“[T]he fixing of prison terms for specific crimes involves a substantive
penological judgment that, as a general matter, is properly within the province of
legislatures, not courts.” Id. at 998 (Justice Kennedy concurring in part and
concurring in the judgment) (internal quotation omitted) . The statute of
conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 2251, was amended by Section 103 of the PROTECT Act
on April 30, 2003. 4 Prior to amendment, the m andatory minimum sentence for a
violation was ten years. The amendment to a minimum of fifteen years was
explained in the House Conference Report:
The increased mandatory minimum sentences are responsive to real
problems of excessive leniency in sentencing under existing law. For
example, the offenses under chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code,
apply in sexual abuse cases involving interstate movement of persons
or use of interstate instrumentalities, such as luring of child victims
through the Internet. Courts all too frequently impose sentences more
lenient than those prescribed by the sentencing guidelines in cases
under chapter 117, particularly in situations where an undercover agent
rather than a child was the object of the enticement. Yet the offender's
conduct in such a case reflects a real attempt to engage in sexual abuse
of a child, and the fact that the target of the effort turned out to be an
undercover officer has no bearing on the culpability of the offender, or
on the danger he presents to children if not adequately restrained and
deterred by criminal punishment. Likewise, courts have been disposed
4
The “PROTECT ACT” is the common reference to the "Prosecutorial Remedies
and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003."
-8-
to grant downward departures from the guidelines for child pornography
possession offenses under chapter 110, based on the misconception that
these crimes are not serious.
H.R. Conf. R. No. 10-866, Joint Explanatory Statement at 51 (commenting on
Title 1 § 103(b)(A)). The comment patently illustrates a specific Congressional
intent.
W hile Cunningham may have been a model citizen up to his retirement, he
pled guilty to attempting to persuade an eleven year old girl to pose nude and
send the picture to him. He e-mailed the child naked pictures of himself. In on-
line chats, he stated he would travel to W yoming if she would have oral and
vaginal intercourse. In addition, Cunningham admitted this w as not his only
victim. Considering these facts, there is no question Cunningham’s sentence was
not disproportionate to his behavior.
Cunningham argues the disparity between the mandatory minimum sentence
imposed in his case and the applicable guideline range is evidence that his
sentence is disproportionate. This argument is unconvincing. Cunningham’s
guideline calculation was derived from the November 5, 2003 Guidelines M anual.
However, the applicable guideline, USSG §2G2.1, was amended to reflect the
PROTECT Act changes to § 2251. Although the PROTECT Act was effective on
April 30, 2003, the associated amendments to the guidelines did not appear until
the November 1, 2004 Guidelines M anual was issued. Therefore, had
Cunningham w aited only five weeks later to commit his criminal acts, the 2004
-9-
edition would have applied. Under the amended guideline, his sentencing range
would have been 168 to 210 months, a sentencing range encompassing the
sentence he received. Accordingly, the district court did not violate
Cunningham’s Eighth Amendment rights when applying the mandatory minimum
sentence.
2. Separation of Powers
Cunningham claims the minimum sentence of 180 months violates the
separation of pow ers doctrine. W ithout citing to authority, he declares,
“Congress has not imparted or created an[y] measure or mechanism by which a
trial court may deviate from a mandatory minimum sentence imposed under 18
U.S.C. § 2251(a) or [(e)]. Therefore, the legislature has improperly divested the
judiciary of its discretion and has prohibited it from any measure to avoid
imposition of a cruel and unusual sentence as applied in individual cases.”
(A ppellant’s Br. at 21.) Again, this argument must be review ed under a plain
error standard.
W e need not tarry long. Cunningham’s argument is clearly contrary to
Supreme Court precedent. In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, the Supreme Court
observed that “the Constitution's central mechanism of separation of powers
depends largely upon common understanding of what activities are appropriate to
legislatures, to executives, and to courts.” 504 U.S. 555, 559-60 (1992). The
Constitution expressly vests the legislative power in Congress, and confers on
-10-
Congress the power to enact those laws that are “necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution” its pow ers. U.S. Const., Art. I, §§ 1, 8. Thus,
“Congress has the power to define criminal punishments w ithout giving the courts
any sentencing discretion.” Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 467 (1991);
see also Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27, 42 (1916) (“[T]he authority to
define and fix the punishment for crime is legislative, and . . . the right to relieve
from the punishment fixed by law . . . belongs to the executive department.”). A s
a result, the application of the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months
imprisonment to Cunningham did not violate the separation of powers doctrine.
AFFIRM ED.
Entered by the C ourt:
Terrence L. O ’Brien
United States Circuit Judge
-11-