United States v. Jonathan Sudduth ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                      DEC 05 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,            No. 12-50116
    Plaintiff - Appellee,       D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00068-VAP-11
    Central District of California,
    v.                                  Los Angeles
    JONATHAN MICHAEL SUDDUTH,            MEMORANDUM*
    AKA Trent,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,           No. 12-50451
    Plaintiff - Appellee,      D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00706-VAP-1
    Central District of California,
    v.                                 Los Angeles
    RYAN HAWTHORNE,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,           No. 12-50452
    Plaintiff - Appellee,      D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00068-VAP-6
    Central District of California,
    v.                                 Los Angeles
    RYAN HAWTHORNE, AKA Pic,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 19, 2014**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: W. FLETCHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON, Senior
    District Judge.***
    In connection with his participation on a child pornography message board,
    Jonathan Sudduth pled guilty to conspiracy to advertise child pornography. As
    part of his plea agreement, Sudduth expressly waived his right to appeal his
    conviction and the calculation and terms of his sentence. Because Sudduth does
    not contest that his appellate waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made, the
    waiver bars Sudduth’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his motions to
    withdraw his plea and to substitute counsel, and it bars his appeal of the calculation
    and reasonableness of his 22-year sentence. See United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior United States District
    Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
    2
    1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Rahman, 
    642 F.3d 1257
    , 1259 (9th
    Cir. 2011).
    Sudduth also frames in constitutional terms challenges to his sentence on
    disparity grounds and to the breadth of the supervised release conditions. While
    this Court has jurisdiction to consider claims of constitutional error
    notwithstanding the existence of an appellate waiver, United States v. Odachyan,
    
    749 F.3d 798
    , 801 (9th Cir. 2014), the district court did not err here. The district
    court had good reasons to treat Sudduth differently from other participants in the
    crimes. See United States v. Carter, 
    560 F.3d 1107
    , 1121 (9th Cir. 2009). Sudduth
    possessed approximately 7,000 images, some of which involved sadistic overtones,
    and admitted that he had sexually abused two minor children. Moreover, Sudduth
    did not provide useful information regarding other victims or targets and
    eventually stopped cooperating with the government. Accordingly, we dismiss
    Sudduth’s appeal.
    Sudduth’s co-defendant, Ryan Hawthorne, appeals the district court’s
    contribution order on the basis that the court failed to make the requisite finding
    under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(f) that “funds are available for payment from or on
    behalf of a person furnished representation.” However, the court ordered
    Hawthorne to contribute up to $2,500 to the expense of his appointed attorney “in
    3
    light of the fact that [Hawthorne] apparently has resources since the resources were
    available for the private retention of two experts whose report was just submitted
    to the Court.” Likewise, the court stated that its “finding” with regard to the
    contribution order was “based on the fact that [Hawthorne] . . . had the resources to
    retain private experts.” Furthermore, Hawthorne did not object to the contribution
    order. Accordingly, the unchallenged record indicates that Hawthorne was capable
    of paying counsel’s fees.
    Sudduth’s appeal, filed under Docket No. 12-50116, is DISMISSED.
    Hawthorne’s contribution order, appealed under Docket Nos. 12-50451 and
    12-50452, is AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-50116

Filed Date: 12/5/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021