United States v. Todd Stydinger

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: May 29, 2025
• Docket: 23-3019
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________

No. 23-3019 _____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

TODD FRANKLIN STYDINGER, Appellant _____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 1:21-cr-00341-001) District Judge: Hon. Christopher C. Conner _____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 14, 2025 _____________

Before: SHWARTZ, MATEY, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

(Filed: May 29, 2025) _____________

OPINION* _____________

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

Todd Franklin Stydinger pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), admitting to possessing 198 pictures and seventy-

three videos documenting sexual abuse of children. Stydinger argues the District Court

incorrectly included the frames contained in his seventy-three videos as “images” under

United States Sentencing Guideline § 2G2.2(b)(7).1 He is incorrect.

The District Court applied the reasoning we would adopt in United States v.

Haggerty, that “[o]rdinary usage makes plain that an ‘image’ is a fixed visual

representation,” which “is synonymous with ‘frame’ in the video context.” 107 F.4th 175,

184–85 (3d Cir. 2024). And the District Court reasonably relied on evidence that just

three of Stydinger’s seventy-three videos contained 1,680 frames of children suffering

sexual abuse. So there is no error in the District Court’s judgment to apply the

enhancement in § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D), and we will affirm.

1 The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We exercise plenary review over an interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines, United States v. Nasir, 17 F.4th 459, 468 (3d Cir. 2021) (en banc), and review for clear error a “district court’s application of the Guidelines to a specific set of facts,” United States v. Caraballo, 88 F.4th 239, 243 (3d Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Richards, 674 F.3d 215, 219 (3d Cir. 2012)).