United States v. Patrick Killen, Jr. ( 2018 )

Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 1 of 31
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15001
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-20106-KMM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
PATRICK KILLEN, JR.,
a.k.a. rebeccatill05,
a.k.a. beverlyhills05,
a.k.a. chanelizzabel,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 29, 2018)
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 2 of 31
Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and WALKER, ∗ Circuit Judges.
MARTIN, Circuit Judge:
Patrick Killen, Jr. appeals his convictions and 139-year sentence relating to
his possession, production, and distribution of child pornography. After careful
consideration, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm Mr. Killen’s
convictions but vacate his sentence and remand for resentencing.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2013, when Mr. Killen was nineteen, he began posing as a young girl on
Kik, which is a messaging-based mobile-phone application. Using the names
“Rebecca Till” or “Chanel Izzabel,” Mr. Killen began online conversations with
teenage boys. He sent the boys images of a partially dressed young girl and asked
the boys to send him nude photos of themselves in return. The boys agreed and
sent photos of themselves, standing naked before a mirror, with their faces and
genitalia visible. After agreeing to the initial requests, some of the boys tried to
end their contact with Mr. Killen. Mr. Killen in turn threatened these boys that he
would post their nude photos on social media platforms, like Instagram, unless
they continued to send him more nude photos. The threatened boys complied.
Sometimes, Mr. Killen directed the boys to assume particular poses. Mr. Killen
∗
Honorable John M. Walker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit,
sitting by designation.
2
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 3 of 31
distributed these photos to another Kik user, “Vanyher.” He also came to possess a
lot of child pornography—over 2,000 images and 100 videos—on his personal
electronic devices.
Law-enforcement offices, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
began getting complaints about someone using Mr. Killen’s usernames in 2013.
One of these complaints led the FBI to Mr. Killen’s residence in Hialeah, Florida.
On February 11, 2014, Special Agents Laura Schwartzenberger and Jason Ginther
interviewed Mr. Killen at his home. During the interview, Mr. Killen admitted to
being “Rebecca Till” and asking boys ages fourteen or fifteen to send him nude
images. He also consented to the search of his electronic devices.
Mr. Killen was arrested over a year later. A superseding indictment charged
him with the following: coercing or employing a minor for the purpose of
producing child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) (Counts
1, 3, 5); distribution and receipt of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2252(a)(2) and (b)(1) (Counts 2, 7–11); extortion by interstate threats, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(d) (Counts 4, 6); possession of child pornography
involving a visual depiction of a prepubescent minor younger than 12, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2) (Counts 12, 15); possession of child
pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2) (Counts 13, 16);
and destruction of evidence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (Count 14).
3
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 4 of 31
Before trial, Mr. Killen filed a motion to suppress his February 2014
confession as well as the search of his electronic devices. After a suppression
hearing, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending the motion be denied. The R&R was then adopted in full by the
District Court. After a 5-day trial, a jury convicted Mr. Killen on all counts except
for Count 14, which related to the destruction of evidence. The District Court
sentenced Mr. Killen to 139-years imprisonment.
On appeal Mr. Killen challenges the District Court’s denial of his
suppression motion, the sufficiency of the superseding indictment, the admission
and exclusion of certain evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his
conviction on certain counts. He also argues that his sentence is procedurally and
substantively unreasonable, and that it violates the Eighth Amendment.
II. CHALLENGES TO CONVICTIONS
A. MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Mr. Killen argues that his February 2014 interview was custodial in nature,
so he should have been informed of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 492, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 1637 (1966). He also argues that even
if the interview was noncustodial, his confession was not voluntary. Finally, as to
the search, he argues that his consent to the search of his electronic devices was not
voluntary. For purposes of the appeal, Mr. Killen does not challenge the facts
4
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 5 of 31
found by the Magistrate Judge and adopted by the District Court, but rather
questions the legal conclusions. We briefly recount the facts here.
The Magistrate Judge found the FBI agents went to the house, where Mr.
Killen lived with his parents and younger sister, with the specific purpose of
conducting a consensual interview and search. The agents suspected that, of the
household residents, Mr. Killen was the most likely user of Kik. The agents first
told Mr. Killen that they were investigating a North Carolina complaint about
internet crimes, but did not reveal that he was a suspect. After asking some
background questions, the agents asked Mr. Killen if he was “Rebecca Till,” which
he denied. Mr. Killen then told the agents they could search his electronic devices,
and he left the room by himself to get the devices from his bedroom. Mr. Killen
returned with his iPad and laptop computer. He told the agents his iPhone needed
to be charged and went back to his bedroom at least twice, unaccompanied, to
check on its battery level. On his second or third visit to his room, Mr. Killen
returned with his phone and Agent Schwartzenberger confirmed that the battery
level was indeed low.
Around the same time, Mr. Killen’s mother asked the agents why they were
there, and the agents gave her the same general explanation they initially gave Mr.
Killen. When speaking with Mr. Killen’s mother, however, Agent
Schwartzenberger added that the FBI sometimes conducts investigations like these
5
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 6 of 31
using SWAT teams “and the whole neighborhood knows about it,” but that she and
Agent Ginther “were trying to be low-key.” Mr. Killen’s mother then told Mr.
Killen “to give the agents what they want.” Agent Schwartzenberger next asked
Mr. Killen to fill out a consent form regarding his electronic devices. Among the
other findings of the Magistrate Judge were that Mr. Killen was “very immature
for his age” and that “he may experience some social or interpersonal deficits”1;
that no one read the form to Mr. Killen; that Mr. Killen had time to read it; and that
Mr. Killen signed the form.
While Agent Ginther examined Mr. Killen’s electronic devices, Agent
Schwartzenberger asked Mr. Killen again if he was “Rebecca Till.” Mr. Killen
asked Agent Schwartzenberger to speak with him outside privately, where he
confessed to being Rebecca Till and to asking for and receiving nude photos from
teenage boys. During this conversation, in response to Mr. Killen’s concern that
his parents would kick him out and mindful of the risk of suicide in cases like
these, Agent Schwartzenberger reassured Mr. Killen that “he would be okay” and
that “they were not there to arrest him.”
Once back inside the house, Mr. Killen turned over two electronic-storage
devices (USB or thumb drives), the agents returned Mr. Killen’s iPad to him, and
1
The Magistrate Judge also noted that Mr. Killen had completed high school, “was
successfully taking courses at Miami Dade College[,] and [was] working.”
6
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 7 of 31
the agents and Mr. Killen amended the consent form accordingly. The agents then
gave Mr. Killen a signed property receipt, which Mr. Killen also signed. Agent
Ginther then accompanied Mr. Killen to his room to search for an old cell phone.
While they were gone, Agent Schwartzenberger told Mr. Killen’s parents about
their son’s criminal conduct and advised them to get psychological help for him
because there was a risk for suicide in cases like this one. Agent Schwartzenberger
gave the parents her business card, and the agents left. Later that afternoon, Agent
Schwartzenberger got an email from Mr. Killen’s father saying he had scheduled a
psychologist appointment for his son later that week.
The Magistrate Judge found that, although Mr. Killen and his parents felt the
FBI agents’ presence in their home to be intimidating, “[i]t was clear from the
testimony of Defendant and his parents that they wanted to cooperate with the
agents that morning.” The agents never displayed firearms or handcuffs. Neither
did they touch Mr. Killen or anyone else in the home nor tell them they could not
leave. Mr. Killen and his parents, in turn, never asked the agents to leave.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, “[w]e review the district
court’s findings of fact for clear error and construe the evidence in the light most
favorable to the party prevailing below—here, the government. We review the
district court’s interpretation and application of the law de novo.” United States v.
Delancy, 502 F.3d 1297, 1304 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
7
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 8 of 31
“A person taken into custody must be advised of his right to remain silent
and his right to counsel prior to any interrogation. . . . Even if a person has not
been arrested, advice of Miranda rights is required if there is a restraint on freedom
of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” United States v.
Muegge, 225 F.3d 1267, 1269–70 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (quotation and
citations omitted). “In order for a court to conclude that a suspect is in custody, it
must be evident that, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable
[innocent] man in the suspect’s position would feel a restraint on his freedom of
movement fairly characterized as that degree associated with a formal arrest to
such extent that he would not feel free to leave.” Id. at 1270 (quotation omitted
and alteration adopted). A defendant’s “status as a suspect, and the ‘coercive
environment’ that exists in virtually every interview by a police officer of a crime
suspect, [does] not automatically create a custodial situation.” Id.
Even if we conclude an interview was noncustodial, we must still ensure that
the confession was voluntary. United States v. Lall, 607 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th
Cir. 2010). To determine whether a confession “was the product of an essentially
free and unconstrained choice,” we consider the totality of the circumstances.
Hubbard v. Haley, 317 F.3d 1245, 1252–53 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted).
We evaluate factors such as “the defendant’s intelligence, the length of his
detention, the nature of the interrogation, the use of any physical force against him,
8
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 9 of 31
or the use of any promises or inducements by police.” Id. at 1253. The presence
or absence of a factor will not necessarily warrant a conclusion that the confession
was involuntary. Id. A law-enforcement officer’s promise not to prosecute or not
to use a suspect’s statement against him “may be the most significant factor in
assessing the voluntariness of an accused’s confession.” Lall, 607 F.3d at 1286
(quoting United States v. Walton, 10 F.3d 1024, 1030 (3d Cir. 1993)).
Our Constitution permits a warrantless search that has been consented to.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 222, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 2045 (1973).
Whether consent was freely given is “to be determined by the totality of the
circumstances,” which includes consideration of such factors as
[(1)] voluntariness of the defendant’s custodial status, [(2)] the
presence of coercive police procedure, [(3)] the extent and level of the
defendant’s cooperation with police, [(4)] the defendant’s awareness
of his right to refuse to consent to the search, [(5)] the defendant’s
education and intelligence, and, significantly, [(6)] the defendant’s
belief that no incriminating evidence will be found.
United States v. Blake, 888 F.2d 795, 798 (11th Cir. 1989). No one factor is
dispositive, including knowledge of the right to refuse consent. Schneckloth, 412
U.S. at 227, 93 S. Ct. at 2048. The presence or absence of voluntary consent is a
question of fact on which the government bears the burden of proof. Blake, 888
F.2d at 798. We thus review the district court’s finding as to whether voluntary
consent was given for clear error. Id.
9
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 10 of 31
Our review of the record and the governing law persuades us that the District
Court properly denied Mr. Killen’s motion to suppress.
Mr. Killen contends the FBI’s interview was custodial because he was a
young, immature man, living in his parents’ home, and therefore did not feel free
to leave, especially after his mother told him to give the agents what they wanted.
In evaluating this argument we apply an objective test. See Muegge, 225 F.3d at
1270. All agree that this was an in-home, kitchen-table interview. The agents
never arrested nor threatened Mr. Killen or his parents. Mr. Killen repeatedly left
the room unescorted to get or check on electronic devices in his bedroom. This
record leads us to conclude that Mr. Killen’s interview was not custodial. See
United States v. Phillips, 812 F.2d 1355, 1357, 1362 (11th Cir. 1987) (determining
interview was noncustodial though suspect was interviewed at the police station,
police had reason to believe suspect was engaged in criminal conduct, and suspect
was never told he could leave).
Mr. Killen contends that his confession was nonetheless involuntary because
(1) Agent Schwartzenberger’s comment about using a SWAT team had the direct
effect of having Mr. Killen’s mother order him to give the agents what they
wanted; (2) the FBI agents deliberately misled Mr. Killen and his parents by failing
to disclose that Mr. Killen was their prime suspect; and (3) Mr. Killen was
immature for his age. The agents did not threaten or use physical force against Mr.
10
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 11 of 31
Killen. Indeed, the most “coercive” conduct Mr. Killen can identify is Agent
Schwartzenberger’s comment about using a SWAT team. Although perhaps not
salutary and also unnecessary, this isolated remark was not sufficiently coercive to
render Mr. Killen’s confession involuntary. See United States v. Jones, 32 F.3d
1512, 1517 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (“Sufficiently coercive conduct normally
involves subjecting the accused to an exhaustingly long interrogation, the
application of physical force or the threat to do so, or the making of a promise that
induces a confession.” (quotation omitted)). As to the allegation that the agents
misled Mr. Killen, we observe that Mr. Killen knew the exact nature of the FBI’s
investigation once Agent Schwartzenberger asked him if he was Rebecca Till.
This revelation came before Mr. Killen made his confession. Even if we accept
that the agents’ failure to inform Mr. Killen and his parents that he was a prime
suspect from the outset amounted to “deceit,” Mr. Killen does not explain how this
deception coerced or induced him into making a confession, or contained false
promises not to prosecute or not to use his statements against him. See Lall, 607
F.3d at 1283–84. Finally, in light of the lack of any coercive police activity, Mr.
Killen’s immaturity is not enough to render his confession involuntary. See
Singleton v. Thigpen, 847 F.2d 668, 671 (11th Cir.1988) (“[C]oercive police
activity is a necessary predicate to a finding that the confession by a person with a
11
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 12 of 31
low intelligence level is involuntary.” (quotation omitted)). Considering the
totality of the circumstances, we conclude Mr. Killen’s confession was voluntary.
Finally, Mr. Killen challenges the search of his electronic devices by saying
that, in light of his immaturity and the fact he did not know he could refuse the
agent’s request, his consent was not voluntary. Again, Mr. Killen was not in
custody and he was cooperative with agents from the beginning of their visit.
Also, the isolated comment about SWAT teams was not sufficiently coercive under
circuit precedent. We accept the Magistrate Judge’s findings that Mr. Killen is
immature and possesses some social and interpersonal deficits, together with the
fact that Mr. Killen failed to read the consent form. Although each of these facts
weighs on the voluntariness of Mr. Killen’s consent, none is dispositive. See
Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227, 93 S. Ct. at 2048. In the end, the Magistrate Judge’s
finding that Mr. Killen gave voluntary consent was not clearly erroneous. See
Blake, 888 F.2d at 798.
On this record, the District Court did not err in denying the motion to
suppress.
B. SUFFICIENCY OF THE INDICTMENT
Mr. Killen argues that the extortion counts, Counts 4 and 6, have an
additional mens rea requirement that the government failed to charge and prove,
12
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 13 of 31
and thus his convictions on these counts must be vacated. Counts 4 and 6 charged
violations of 18 U.S.C. § 875(d):
Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or
corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate
or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to
injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the
reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee
or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Id. § 875(d).
In Elonis v. United States, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), the
Supreme Court vacated a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) involving the
interstate transmission of threats to kidnap or injure a person. 2 Elonis, 135 S. Ct. at
2012. The Court determined that § 875(c) lacked an express mens rea requirement,
unlike its neighboring provisions § 875(b) and § 875(d). Id. at 2008–09. The trial
court’s instruction to the jury, that the government needed to prove only that a
reasonable person would view a communication sent by the defendant as a threat,
therefore “reduce[d] culpability on [whether the communication contained a threat]
. . . to negligence.” Id. at 2007, 2011 (quotation omitted). The Court rejected this
notion because “wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal.” Id. at 2012
2
Section 875(c) states, “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of
another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” 18
U.S.C. § 875(c).
13
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 14 of 31
(quotation omitted). Nonetheless, the Court reasoned it could read the necessary
mens rea into the statute, which it defined as “only that mens rea which is
necessary to separate wrongful conduct from otherwise innocent conduct.” Id. at
2010 (quotation omitted). The Court determined that “the crucial element
separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct” under § 875(c) was “the
threatening nature of the communication” and thus culpability required
consideration of the defendant’s state of mind as to that element. Id. at 2011
(quotation omitted).
Mr. Killen’s argument extrapolates from Elonis that § 875(d) also requires
“a subjective intent to convey a threat to injure another” or some awareness by the
defendant that the communication contains a threat. In other words, he argues that
the government was required to charge and prove that he had some awareness that
telling the teenage boys he would post their nude photos on social media platforms
would be perceived as a threat by the boys. Generally, whether the government is
required to allege and prove a particular element of a crime is a question of law
subject to de novo review. United States v. Pistone, 177 F.3d 957, 958 (11th Cir.
1999) (per curiam). However, since Mr. Killen never made this objection to the
indictment, we must review for plain error only. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b);
United States v. Swatzie, 228 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 2000). “The plain-error
test has four prongs: there must be (1) an error (2) that is plain and (3) that has
14
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 15 of 31
affected the defendant’s substantial rights; and if the first three prongs are met,
then a court may exercise its discretion to correct the error if (4) the error seriously
affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United
States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir. 2013) (alteration adopted and
quotation omitted).
There was no error here, plain or otherwise. First, unlike § 875(c), § 875(d)
already contains a required mental state: “intent to extort.” Id. § 875(d). Second,
the Supreme Court’s core concern in Elonis, that a person can violate § 875(c)
without being aware of their own wrongdoing, does not apply to convictions under
§ 875(d). See Elonis, 135 S. Ct. at 2011–12; see also United States v. Jackson, 180
F.3d 55, 70 (2d Cir. 1999) (concluding that “Congress meant to adopt the
traditional concept of extortion [in § 875(d)], which includes an element of
wrongfulness”). In order to prove “intent to extort,” the government must prove
that the defendant had the intent to procure something of value through wrongful
conduct. Cf. United States v. White, 810 F.3d 212, 223 (4th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he
intent to extort for purposes of § 875(b) is the intent to procure something of value
through the use of a wrongful threat to kidnap or injure the person of another.
Such a threat is wrongful when delivered intentionally.”). 3 Because “[e]xtortion
3
Although the Fourth Circuit addressed § 875(b) in White, its reasoning also applies to
§ 875(d), which differs from § 875(b) only in the nature of the threat. Compare 18 U.S.C.
15
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 16 of 31
only works if the [victim] fears that not paying will invite an unsavory result,” “to
intend to extort one must necessarily intend to instill fear of harm.” Id. at 223. In
the context of § 875(d), therefore, “it would be passing strange, indeed impossible,
for a defendant to intend to obtain something by communicating [] a threat [to
injure the property or reputation of another or a threat to accuse another of a crime]
without also intending, understanding, or, possibly, recklessly disregarding that the
communication would be perceived as threatening.” See id. We reject Mr.
Killen’s argument as to the sufficiency of the indictment.
C. EXPERT MENTAL HEALTH TESTIMONY
Mr. Killen contends that the District Court abused its discretion in excluding
expert testimony about his mental state. On June 8, 2015, the government filed a
motion in limine to exclude expert testimony of Mr. Killen’s mental condition
because (1) no notice had been given as required under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 12.2, 4 and (2) Mr. Killen was charged with only general-intent crimes.
Mr. Killen did not respond to the government’s motion, and the District Court
granted it. The District Court’s order relied primarily on the lack of notice, but
§ 875(b) (criminalizing threat to kidnap or injure the person of another), with id. § 875(d)
(criminalizing threat to injure the property or reputation of another or threat to accuse another of
a crime).
4
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2 requires defendants to give notice if they want
to present expert evidence of a mental condition bearing on the issue of guilt. Fed. R. Crim. P.
12.2(b). Rule 12.2(d)(1)(A) authorizes district courts to exclude such evidence for failure to give
notice.
16
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 17 of 31
alternatively adopted the government’s argument that Mr. Killen was charged with
only general-intent crimes. Mr. Killen then filed a motion for reconsideration, in
which he offered an excuse for his delay in responding to the government’s motion
in limine—but not for failing to file a Rule 12.2 notice. He also argued he was
charged with some specific-intent crimes. The District Court denied the motion for
reconsideration. On appeal Mr. Killen challenged only the District Court’s
alternative ruling that he was charged with general-intent crimes.
A district court’s decision on the admissibility of psychiatric evidence at trial
is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Cameron, 907 F.2d 1051,
1057 (11th Cir. 1990). “To obtain reversal of a district court judgment that is
based on multiple, independent grounds, an appellant must convince us that every
stated ground for the judgment against him is incorrect.” Sapuppo v. Allstate
Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). Failure to challenge a
particular ground results in its abandonment and “it follows that the judgment is
due to be affirmed.” Id.
In Mr. Killen’s opening brief on appeal, like his motion for reconsideration,
he challenged only the District Court’s finding that he was charged with general-
intent crimes. He failed again here to address the District Court’s ruling that he did
not give notice under Rule 12.2. On this record, Mr. Killen has waived any
challenge to the District Court’s dismissal on that ground, so “the judgment is due
17
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 18 of 31
to be affirmed.” See id. Our conclusion does not change because Mr. Killen
included argument on notice in his reply brief. See id. at 682–83 (stating this
Court’s rule that arguments not raised in opening briefs are deemed waived).
D. CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
Mr. Killen argues the District Court twice violated his Confrontation Clause
rights. He says the first violation happened when the District Court admitted law-
enforcement officers’ testimony about victim reports and allowed parents of the
victim boys to testify. Mr. Killen characterizes this testimony as testimonial
hearsay statements from the victims. Mr. Killen says the second Confrontation
Clause violation happened when the District Court admitted business records from
Kik because they were processed through Canadian law enforcement officers and
thus constituted testimonial hearsay. 5
“We review evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. However, we
review de novo the question of whether hearsay statements are testimonial for
purposes of the Confrontation Clause.” United States v. Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214,
1226 (11th Cir. 2010) (quotations and citations omitted). “In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the
5
Mr. Killen also argues that Kik’s record custodian should have testified at trial and the
government’s use of an out-of-court statement certifying that the records were kept in the
ordinary course of business presented a Confrontation Clause problem. This argument is waived
as it was raised for the first time in Mr. Killen’s reply brief. See Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 682–83.
18
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 19 of 31
witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. Amend. VI. The Confrontation Clause is
concerned with a specific type of hearsay—testimonial statements, or “solemn
declaration[s] or affirmation[s] made for the purpose of establishing or proving
some fact.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1364
(2004) (quotations omitted). Therefore, the Confrontation Clause does not bar
statements that are not hearsay or statements that are nontestimonial in nature. See
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821–22, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 2273–74 (2006)
(holding the Confrontation Clause is not concerned with nontestimonial hearsay);
United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1287 (11th Cir. 2009) (determining
statements offered “for a purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted” do not
implicate the Confrontation Clause). Out-of-court statements made to law-
enforcement officers may be admitted as nonhearsay if they are offered to explain
how the officers came to take the investigative actions they did. Jiminez, 564 F.3d
at 1288. Also, private conversations between family members in the home are
typically nontestimonial when they were “not made under examination, [were] not
transcribed in a formal document, and [were] not made under circumstances
leading an objective person to reasonably believe the statement would be available
for use at a later trial.” United States v. Brown, 441 F.3d 1330, 1360 (11th Cir.
2006).
19
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 20 of 31
The admission of the law-enforcement officers’ and victims’ parents’
testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause. Of the government’s
witnesses, only two law-enforcement officers testified about the initial complaints
they received from parents and a student about the boys’ interactions with Mr.
Killen’s online identities. The officers told of these complaints to show how the
officers’ investigation came about. Thus, they were not offered for the truth of the
matter asserted and did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. See Jiminez, 564
F.3d at 1287–88. Of the parents who testified, two did not convey any of their
sons’ out-of-court statements. The third parent’s testimony did include a hearsay
statement from her son, to the extent she recounted how he told her about sending
nude photos to a stranger. However, this hearsay statement did not implicate the
Confrontation Clause because it was nontestimonial. The boy made the statement
to his mother soon after his interaction with Mr. Killen, in private, in their home, to
explain his distress and to seek reassurance and forgiveness from his mother.
These circumstances would not lead an objective person to reasonably believe the
statement was testimonial in that it would be available for use at a later trial.6 See
Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51–52, 124 S. Ct. at 1364; Brown, 441 F.3d at 1360.
6
The parties do not argue and we do not decide whether the admission of this boy’s
statement violated the evidentiary rule against hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 802.
20
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 21 of 31
As for the Kik business records, it is generally true that business records
“created for the administration of an entity’s affairs and not for the purpose of
establishing or proving some fact at trial [] are not testimonial” and pose no
Confrontation Clause problem. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305,
324, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2539–40 (2009). Mr. Killen argues, however, that since the
Kik records were processed by Canadian law enforcement, they were created for
the purpose of his prosecution.7 The record supports this argument. A government
witness testified at trial that Canadian police had encrypted and inventoried the Kik
records and provided an index. However, the witness did not know whether the
Canadian police had exercised any discretion in passing along the records. No
Canadian officer was called to testify to the nature of the processing done by
Canadian law enforcement, so the record does not reveal to us whether encrypting,
inventorying, and generating an index were the only actions taken with regard to
the Kik records.
However, we need not decide whether this type of action by law-
enforcement agencies can rise to a Confrontation Clause violation. Even if we
7
Kik is a Canadian company, and the FBI requested the records through the Mutual
Legal Assistance Treaty (“MLAT”). Kik turned them over to the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, who in turn gave them to the FBI. These records consisted of transactional and
identifying information, such as chat logs identifying one user as talking to another user at a
particular time; photographs sent over the service; bind logs identifying when a particular user
accesses Kik; and identifying account information such as location, usernames, associated email
accounts, and IP addresses. The records did not include the content of Mr. Killen’s text
messages shared on Kik.
21
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 22 of 31
assume that the admission of the Kik records was a Confrontation Clause violation,
it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in this case. See United States v.
Caraballo, 595 F.3d 1214, 1229 n.1 (11th Cir. 2010) (“For violations of the
Confrontation Clause, harmless error occurs where it is clear beyond a reasonable
doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.”
(quotation omitted)). Simply put, there was other overwhelming evidence of Mr.
Killen’s guilt on the offenses of conviction. FBI Agent Melissa Starman testified
about the evidence recovered from Mr. Killen’s personal electronic devices,
including: saved conversations between Mr. Killen and the victims; saved
conversations between Mr. Killen and other internet users interested in child
pornography; photographs and videos containing child pornography; use of file-
sharing software; and incriminating internet searches. Agent Schwartzenberger
testified about Mr. Killen’s confession during the February 2014 interview. And
Mr. Killen himself testified and admitted to soliciting child pornography and to the
extortion conduct. Mr. Killen also confirmed that Agent Schwartzenberger’s
testimony about what he said in his confession was “essentially” correct. In light
of this other evidence, even if a Confrontation Clause violation resulted from
admission of the Kik business records, it did not materially contribute to the
verdict returned by the jury.
22
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 23 of 31
E. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE
Mr. Killen raises two challenges based on sufficiency of the evidence. He
first argues that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him of the extortion
counts, Counts 4 and 6, because the extortion victims did not testify. He also
argues that the nude images sent by his victims do not meet the definition of child
pornography in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A) and thus require reversal of his convictions
on Counts 1–3, 5, and 7.
Sufficiency of the evidence challenges are reviewed de novo, with the
evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the government and with all
reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in the government’s favor.
United States v. Gamory, 635 F.3d 480, 497 (11th Cir. 2011).
For the extortion counts, a government agent testified about saved
conversations recovered from Mr. Killen’s personal electronic devices, during
which Mr. Killen asked teenage boys for photos; was refused; then threatened he
would post the nude photos he had already received on social media platforms if
more were not sent. In any event, Mr. Killen admitted to the extortion conduct and
the feeling of power and control it gave him. This record contains sufficient
evidence on these counts to permit a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
without testimony from the victims.
23
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 24 of 31
On the question of whether the nude images of the teenage boys constitute
child pornography as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A), we conclude they do.
Child pornography is defined as “any visual depiction” of “a minor engaging in
sexually explicit conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B). Section 2256(2)(A) defines
“sexually explicit conduct” as including the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals
or pubic area of any person.” Id. § 2256(2)(A)(v). “[A] lascivious exhibition [is]
one that potentially excites sexual desires or is salacious.” United States v.
Grzybowicz, 747 F.3d 1296, 1305–06 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation omitted and
alterations adopted). “[D]epictions of otherwise innocent conduct may in fact
constitute a ‘lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area’ of a minor based on
the actions of the individual creating the depiction.” United States v. Holmes, 814
F.3d 1246, 1251–52 (11th Cir. 2016). “Lasciviousness is not a characteristic of the
child photographed but of the exhibition which the photographer sets up for an
audience that consists of himself or like-minded pedophiles.” Id. at 1252
(alteration adopted) (quoting United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th
Cir. 1987)).
Mr. Killen contends that these nude images are simply nude images—
innocent conduct of teenage boys. But to the contrary, the electronic evidence of
the conversations shows that Mr. Killen insisted the boys be photographed with an
erect penis and that he rejected pictures that did not contain this feature. Mr.
24
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 25 of 31
Killen also directed the boys into particular poses to show their testicles and
display the length of their erect penis. Mr. Killen’s conversations with the teenage
boys were also sexual in nature. When he shared the images with others, Mr.
Killen would describe them in sexual terms. Mr. Killen also possessed other
images of child pornography that had been shared with him through file- sharing
websites. See United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276, 1296 n.17 (11th Cir. 2006)
(“That the photographs of the victim were found with other sexually explicit
photographs could make it more likely that their purpose was to elicit a sexual
response.”). We recognize that Mr. Killen denied sexual gratification from these
images, but we have held that “a statement by a defendant, if disbelieved by the
jury, may be considered as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt” meaning
that “the jury might conclude that the opposite of his testimony is true.” United
States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 1995) (emphasis omitted). Again
here, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the nude
photographs were “lascivious exhibition[s] of the genitals or pubic area.” 18
U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A)(v).
On this record, we affirm Mr. Killen’s convictions.
III. CHALLENGES TO SENTENCE
With regard to his sentence, Mr. Killen argues that 139 years is both
procedurally and substantively unreasonable. We review the reasonableness of a
25
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 26 of 31
sentence for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct.
586, 597 (2007). We first look to whether the sentence is procedurally
unreasonable. We ask whether the district court committed any “significant
procedural error, such as . . . improperly calculating[] the [United States
Sentencing] Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, [or] failing to
consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors.” 8 Id. If the sentence is procedurally
sound, we then determine whether it is substantively reasonable, “tak[ing] into
account the totality of the circumstances.” Id. “The party challenging the sentence
bears the burden of showing that it is unreasonable.” United States v. Trailer, 827
F.3d 933, 936 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). We will vacate the sentence only “if
we are left with the definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a
clear error of judgment in weighing the § 3553(a) factors by arriving at a sentence
that lies outside the range of reasonable sentences dictated by the facts of the case.”
Id. (quotation omitted).
Mr. Killen argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the
District Court erred when it applied Guidelines § 2G2.1. He contends that § 2G2.1
8
The § 3553(a) factors include (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; (3) the need for
deterrence; (4) the need to protect the public; (5) the need to provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training or medical care; (6) the kinds of sentences available; (7) the
Sentencing Guidelines range; (8) pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commission; (9)
the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide restitution to
victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
26
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 27 of 31
defines child pornography by reference to 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A) and the nude
images sent by the victims to Mr. Killen did not meet the definition of “sexually
explicit conduct.” But we have already addressed this contention and concluded
there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that these images were
“lascivious exhibition[s].” Thus the District Court did not err in applying § 2G2.1.
Mr. Killen also makes a general objection to the application of Guidelines §§
2G2.1 and 2G2.2. He argues that these child pornography guidelines are not
empirically based and that the Sentencing Commission’s 2012 report criticizing
them has essentially rendered them invalid. Although recognizing the report is
something “a district court may certainly consider . . . in choosing the ultimate
sentence,” this Court has already rejected the argument that the 2012 report renders
the guidelines invalid. See United States v. Cubero, 754 F.3d 888, 900 (11th Cir.
2014)9; see also United States v. Wayerski, 624 F.3d 1342, 1354–55 (11th Cir.
2010). Mr. Killen’s last objection to the application of Guidelines § 2G2.1(d)(1),
is that it resulted in an additional 252 “pseudo counts” related to minors not named
in the indictment. He says the relevant conduct for any of his offenses of
conviction does not support the application of § 2G2.1(d)(1). We need not decide
whether the conduct related to unnamed victims was properly considered as
9
The report was published in December 2012 and it was reported to Congress in
February 2013. Cubero, 754 F.3d at 898. Cubero refers to it as the “2013 report.”
27
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 28 of 31
relevant conduct for Mr. Killen’s production offenses. Even without the pseudo
counts, Mr. Killen’s offense level would still have reached the maximum level of
43 and his guideline range would have been the same. See United States v. Sarras,
575 F.3d 1191, 1220 & n.39 (11th Cir. 2009) (reviewing a sentence for procedural
reasonableness and noting that an alleged error was harmless because the total
offense level would have remained the same). Mr. Killen’s sentence did not result
from procedural error.
However, our careful consideration has led us to conclude that his sentence
is substantively unreasonable. In imposing what amounted to a life sentence
without parole, the District Court responded to Mr. Killen’s argument that his
sentence was disparate by saying “sentencing disparity is not a recognized basis for
a sentence to be imposed.” 10 But to the contrary, § 3553(a) lists “the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities” as a factor to be considered. 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a)(6). Indeed this factor requires particular attention in the context of child
pornography offenses, in light of the wide range of conduct that can constitute this
type of offense, as well as the breadth of sentences authorized under the child
10
We take the District Court’s sentencing-disparity remark as an indicator that it ignored
this factor. See United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1194 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[A] sentence may
be unreasonable if it is grounded solely on one factor, relies on impermissible factors, or ignores
relevant factors.”). To the extent the District Court did not consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors altogether, the sentence is also procedurally unreasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007) (explaining that “failing to consider the § 3553(a)
factors” is a procedural error).
28
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 29 of 31
pornography guidelines. See United States v. Kapordelis, 569 F.3d 1291, 1317
(11th Cir. 2009) (collecting cases).
The significance of considering sentencing disparity is highlighted by a
comparison of the defendant’s conduct in Kapordelis to that of Mr. Killen. In
Kapordelis, we affirmed Mr. Kapordelis’s 35-year sentence, which was a variance
above his guideline range, where he possessed more than 500 videos and 2,000
images of child pornography, had a 20-year history of drugging and molesting
minors, and had traveled abroad to have sex with minor boys. Id. at 1318–19. Mr.
Killen possessed a similar number of child pornography images. However, in
contrast to Mr. Kaprodelis, Mr. Killen had no hands-on contact with a minor
during the less than 2-year period of his criminal conduct, let alone a 20-year
history of drugging and molesting them or traveling for the express purpose of
having sex with a child. Also, there are potentially mitigating facts in Mr. Killen’s
case, not present in the Kapordelis case. For example, despite the fact that Mr.
Killen had reached the age of majority at the time of his offense, he was found to
be very immature for his age. The Magistrate Judge made this finding after the
suppression hearing, and the District Court adopted it. The District Court heard
from both Mr. Killen’s parents and a neighbor during sentencing that Mr. Killen
was a “special needs” child. The presentence report detailed his horrific childhood
29
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 30 of 31
in a Romanian orphanage. And yet Mr. Killen’s sentence is four times that of Mr.
Kapordelis.
Thus, we conclude that the District Court did not consider “the need to avoid
unwarranted sentencing disparities,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6), and we are left with
the definite and firm conviction that the court committed a clear error of judgment
in weighing the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1189
(11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“A district court abuses its discretion when it [] fails to
afford consideration to relevant factors that were due significant weight.”); Pugh,
515 F.3d at 1194 (“[A] sentence may be unreasonable if it is grounded solely on
one factor, relies on impermissible factors, or ignores relevant factors.”). We
therefore vacate Mr. Killen’s sentence.11
In remanding for resentencing, we note the District Court said at sentencing
that it could not see any future for Mr. Killen other than incarceration. The District
Court clearly concluded that the only proper sentence for Mr. Killen would leave
him to spend the rest of his life in prison. In light of his remarks that
notwithstanding any errors the sentence would be “identical as a reasonable
sentence,” we conclude that the judge who imposed this 139-year sentence will
have “difficulty putting his previous views and findings aside.” United States v.
11
Because we vacate Mr. Killen’s sentence on grounds of substantive unreasonableness,
we need not address his Eighth Amendment claims.
30
Case: 15-15001 Date Filed: 03/29/2018 Page: 31 of 31
Torkington, 874 F.2d 1441, 1447 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); see also United
States v. Plate, 839 F.3d 950, 958 (11th Cir. 2016) (reassigning case to new district
judge for resentencing where “it appear[ed] the district court may be unable to
disregard its improper consideration of [a] factor or, at least, that it may appear
so”). We also conclude that reassignment of Mr. Killen’s sentencing will not entail
significant waste or duplication. See Torkington, 874 F.2d at 1447. We therefore
exercise our supervisory powers and remand Mr. Killen’s case for resentencing
before a different district court judge. See id.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
31