United States v. Matthias Haddock

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10686
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00112-LRH-
VPC-1
v.
MATTHIAS HADDOCK, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 20, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: BERZON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLO, Senior
District Judge.**
Matthias Haddock (Haddock) appeals the district court’s sentence of 210
months’ imprisonment premised on Haddock’s guilty plea to one count of receipt
of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2). Haddock contends
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
that the district court erred in increasing his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§ 2G2.2(b)(5) due to Haddock’s “pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or
exploitation of a minor.” Haddock also asserts that the district court erred in
imposing the mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1) and in
admitting the oral and written statements of Haddock’s daughter concerning
Haddock’s sexual abuse.
The district court’s finding that Haddock “engaged in two or more instances
of sexual abuse” of his daughter was not clearly erroneous, as it sufficiently
considered the documents submitted by Haddock. The district court thus properly
applied U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5) based on the preponderance of the evidence related
to Haddock’s molestation of his daughter. See United States v. Williamson, 439
F.3d 1125, 1140 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that the district court may consider
uncharged conduct in ascertaining whether U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 applies).
We need not and do not address Haddock’s challenge to the district court’s
ruling that his state conviction qualified as a predicate offense under 18 U.S.C. §
2252A(b)(1). The district court correctly calculated a sentencing guidelines range
of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment and articulated that it would have sentenced
Haddock to 210 months’ imprisonment irrespective of the mandatory minimum
sentence. See United States v. Evans-Martinez, 611 F.3d 635, 645 (9th Cir. 2010).
2
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the oral and
written statements of Haddock’s daughter at the final sentencing hearing. See
United States v. Christensen, 732 F.3d 1094, 1102 (9th Cir. 2013) (articulating that
“a sentencing judge may appropriately conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely
unlimited either as to the kind of information he may consider, or the source from
which it may come”) (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3