United States v. Shaun Tedrow

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: March 21, 2024
• Docket: 22-3353
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________

No. 22-3353 ____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

SHAUN TEDROW, Appellant ____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Criminal No. 2-20-cr-00265-001) District Judge: Honorable W. Scott Hardy ____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on December 12, 2023

Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 21, 2024)

_______________

OPINION * ______________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. FREEMAN, Circuit Judge.

Shaun Tedrow challenges the ten-year sentence of imprisonment that was imposed

upon him for possession of material depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor. He

contends that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the

Eighth Amendment. For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.

I

In 2009, Tedrow (who was then 27 years old) fondled the genitals of an 11-year-

old boy. He was charged with indecent assault of a person under 13 years of age, in

violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3126(a)(7),1 and he entered a no-contest plea in 2011.

See Commonwealth v. Tedrow, No. 569-WDA-2017, 2017 WL 6182157, at *1 (Pa.

Super. Ct. Dec. 8, 2017). The state court sentenced him to a two-year term of probation,

but after several violations the court revoked his probation and sentenced him to eight

months to five years in prison. Id. at *1–2.

In early 2020, while he was on parole, Tedrow admitted to parole officers that he

had sent sexually explicit images of himself to minors. A subsequent investigation

revealed that Tedrow possessed more than 600 still and video images on his cellular

phone depicting the sexual exploitation of minors. Most of the minors in the images were

prepubescent and under 12 years of age. He was indicted by a federal grand jury for

1 An individual is guilty of indecent assault under Pennsylvania law if he or she has “indecent contact with the complainant . . . for the purpose of arousing sexual desire in the person or the complainant and: . . . the complainant is less than 13 years of age.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3126(a)(7).

2 possessing that material in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2), and he

pleaded guilty to the offense in 2022.

Because some of the images Tedrow possessed depicted prepubescent minors or

minors under 12 years of age, the offense carried a statutory maximum term of 20 years’

imprisonment. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2). Tedrow also was subject to a ten-year mandatory

minimum sentence of imprisonment because he had been previously convicted of sexual

misconduct involving a minor. Id.2 If not for the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence,

Tedrow’s advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines range would have been 63-78

months of imprisonment.

At his sentencing hearing, Tedrow argued that the mandatory minimum sentence

amounted to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The

District Court rejected his argument and sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment to

be followed by ten years of supervised release.

Tedrow timely appealed.

2 Under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2), individuals convicted of violating subsection (a)(4) “shall be . . . imprisoned for not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years” if they “ha[ve] a prior conviction . . . under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography[.]” Tedrow does not contest that his prior state conviction triggers the enhancement.

3 II3

We exercise plenary review of a constitutional challenge to a mandatory minimum

sentence. See United States v. Walker, 473 F.3d 71, 75 (3d Cir. 2007).

“[T]he Eighth Amendment prohibits [the] imposition of a sentence that is grossly

disproportionate to the severity of the crime.” Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 271

(1980); Walker, 473 F.3d at 80. When evaluating proportionality, courts must consider:

(1) “the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty,” (2) “the sentences

imposed on other [individuals] in the same jurisdiction,” and (3) “the sentences imposed

for [the] commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” United States v.

MacEwan, 445 F.3d 237, 247 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290–

92 (1983)). The first factor “acts as a gateway or threshold,” such that a defendant’s

“fail[ure] to show a gross imbalance between the crime and the sentence” ends the

inquiry. Id. at 248.

Tedrow argues that a ten-year sentence is grossly disproportionate to his crime

because the prior offense triggering the enhancement was a misdemeanor from twelve

years earlier for which he initially received probation. But Tedrow makes no persuasive

argument that a ten-year sentence is disproportionate to his instant offense: possessing

more than 600 still and video images depicting the sexual exploitation of minors, most of

whom were prepubescent and under 12 years of age. After all, his sentence is ten years

3 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

4 below the statutory maximum that Congress authorized for such an offense, even absent

an enhancement for a prior conviction. And, “[g]enerally, a sentence within the limits

imposed by statute is neither excessive nor cruel and unusual under the Eighth

Amendment.” United States v. Miknevich, 638 F.3d 178, 186 (3d Cir. 2011).

In sum, Tedrow fails to demonstrate that this is the unique case where “a threshold

comparison of the crime committed and the sentence imposed leads to an inference of

gross disproportionality.” Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 30 (2003) (quoting

Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1005 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and

concurring in the judgment)).

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.