United States v. Strieper

• Decision Date: 23 January 2012
• Docket Number: No. 10–5060.,10–5060.
• Citation: 666 F.3d 288
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Alan Paul STRIEPER, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

666 F.3d 288

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Alan Paul STRIEPER, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 10–5060.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: Oct. 26, 2011.Decided: Jan. 23, 2012.

ARGUED: Frances H. Pratt, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Melissa Elaine O'Boyle, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, Walter B. Dalton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, Elizabeth M. Yusi, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge FLOYD wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge TRAXLER and Judge SHEDD joined.

OPINION

FLOYD, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal, we consider whether the district court properly applied two five-level enhancements to Alan Paul Strieper's sentence for attempted enticement, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography. We also consider whether Strieper's sentence is substantively reasonable. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

I.

We briefly review the undisputed facts and procedural history. In early November 2009, Strieper, an information systems technician with the United States Navy, joined an online forum where individuals chat and share stories regarding their interest in young boys. Between late November 2009 and early February 2010, Strieper and “Stu,” a confidential source for the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), engaged in detailed online chats about Strieper's large child pornography collection and his desire to kidnap, molest, and murder a young child. Strieper began to develop a plan wherein Stu would travel from St. Louis, Missouri to Norfolk, Virginia to meet Strieper and together they would kidnap, rape, and possibly murder a child. In early January 2010, Strieper told Stu when he would be available to execute the plan, what objects he would bring with him, and what he would do with the body of the dead child. On January 15, 2010, Strieper and Stu arranged for Stu to fly from St. Louis to Norfolk to carry out the plan. They did not select or identify a specific victim prior to the trip, however. Rather, they agreed to abduct a four- or five-year-old child at random.

On February 5, 2010, ICE agents arrested Strieper at Norfolk International Airport when he approached an undercover agent who he believed was Stu. A search of Strieper's vehicle uncovered items that he told Stu he would purchase to accomplish the plan: duct tape, a prepaid Tracphone, rubber gloves, cleaning supplies, and bottles of pills. A search of Strieper's home uncovered electronic media devices on which agents found numerous images and videos of child pornography, and a forensic analysis of these devices revealed that Strieper had used Limewire, a peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing program, to download and share the child pornography. Strieper's collection of child pornography included images of prepubescent children and images that featured sadomasochistic conduct.

On April 21, 2010, a federal grand jury indicted Strieper on one count of attempted enticement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a); two counts of receiving child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2); and one count of possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5). Strieper pled guilty without a plea agreement to all counts.

On September 7, 2010, the district court sentenced Strieper to 420 months' imprisonment. The court applied two five-level enhancements to calculate Strieper's offense level of 42. It applied the first enhancement for engaging in a pattern of sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor and the second for distribution of child pornography for receipt of a thing of value. At sentencing, Strieper objected to the first enhancement, but not to the second. Strieper's sentence was within the applicable Guidelines range.

II.

On appeal, Strieper contends (1) that the district court erred in applying each enhancement and (2) that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

We review criminal sentences only “to determin[e] whether they are ‘reasonable.’ ” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). First, we “ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as ... improperly calculating ... the Guidelines range.” Id. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. In this regard, we review the court's factual findings for clear error, its legal conclusions de novo, United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 330, 334 (4th Cir.2009), and unpreserved arguments for plain error, United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 577 (4th Cir.2010). If no procedural error exists, we review “the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed” for abuse of discretion. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586.

A.

The Sentencing Guidelines allow for a five-level enhancement to a defendant's offense level “[i]f the defendant engaged in a pattern of activity involving the sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.” U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(5).

A “pattern of activity” is “any combination of two or more separate instances of the sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a minor by the defendant.” Id. § 2G2.2 cmt. n. 1. “Sexual abuse or exploitation” includes, inter alia, sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2241–43; enticement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422; and traveling with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423.¹ Id. Of course, an attempt or conspiracy to violate any of these statutes equally qualifies as “sexual abuse or exploitation.” Id. Furthermore, for purposes of this provision, a “minor” is

(A) an individual who had not attained the age of 18 years; (B) an individual, whether fictitious or not, who a law enforcement officer represented to a participant (i) had not attained the age of 18 years, and (ii) could be provided for the purposes of engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) an undercover law enforcement officer who represented to a participant that the officer had not attained the age of 18 years.Id.

The district court applied a five-level pattern of activity enhancement to Strieper's sentence, concluding that he engaged in three instances of sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor: (1) arranging a meeting with a minor in Chesapeake, Virginia, (2) communicating online with a minor in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and (3) attempting to entice Stu to travel to engage in illicit sexual activity. Strieper contends that the district court erred, however, because neither his communication with the minor in Virginia Beach, nor his interaction with Stu qualifies as an instance of “sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor.” ² We disagree and address Strieper's communication with Stu below. Because we conclude that Strieper's communication with Stu qualifies as an instance of “sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor,” we do not address his communication with the minor in Virginia Beach.

Strieper argues that his attempt to entice Stu does not qualify as “sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor” because the definition of “minor” requires a specific, identified victim.³ In short, Strieper argues that even though the definition of “minor” allows for a fictitious person, because a minor must be an “individual,” it requires a particular individual, not an unidentified, generalized individual, as was the subject of Strieper and Stu's conversations here.⁴

We interpret the Sentencing Guidelines according to the ordinary rules of statutory construction. United States v. Hargrove, 478 F.3d 195, 205 (4th Cir.2007). Thus, we “give a guideline its plain meaning, as determined by examination of its ‘language, structure, and purpose.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Horton, 321 F.3d 476, 479 (4th Cir.2003)).

“Individual” means a single person or, alternatively, a particular person. See e.g., Merriam–Webster Dictionary 382 (2011); American Heritage Dictionary 354 (5th ed. 2011). In light of these alternatives, therefore, we consider which definition comports with the purpose of the “pattern of activity” enhancement.

Section 2G2.2 “as a whole is concerned with acts involving sexually exploitive material,” United States v. Ketcham, 80 F.3d 789, 794–95 (3d Cir.1996), but the subsections of § 2G2.2 indicate that the severity of an enhancement is related to a defendant's level of direct involvement in abusing or exploiting a minor. See id. Subsections 2G2.2(b)(1) through (b)(4), for example, “concern[ ] [a defendant's dealings with] material involving the sexual exploitation of minors” and delineate lower enhancements because the defendant's involvement in the sexual exploitation is indirect. Id. at 794. In contrast, § 2G2.2(b)(5) “singles out for more severe punishment those defendants who are more dangerous because they have been involved first hand in the exploitation of children.” Id. at 795. Moreover, the application of the § 2G2.2(b)(5) enhancement to fictitious children indicates a focus on the danger a defendant would pose if given the opportunity to carry out his plans, rather than on whether a defendant actually has exposed a child to direct harm. Given the enhancement's goal, then, of identifying those intending to be involved in the first-hand sexual abuse or exploitation of a minor, whether real or fictitious, it follows that whether a defendant has identified a specific victim ahead of the crime is not dispositive.⁵

Here, the district court determined that absent his arrest, Strieper would have carried out his plan to abduct and assault a child. ⁶ Accordingly, his failure to identify a specific child at...