Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; March 13, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
John Kenneth Coil appeals his conviction and sentence for transporting obscene materials and mail fraud. He raises three main arguments: (1) the District Court imposed a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum, violating the principles established in *Booker*; (2) the court wrongfully denied his motions to suppress evidence obtained from a search warrant he claims is invalid; and (3) the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 1465 is unconstitutional, referencing *Lawrence v. Texas*. The appellate court affirms the conviction, finding no error in the suppression denial or the enforcement of § 1465. However, it vacates Coil's sentence due to *Booker* error, noting that enhancements were made under a mandatory guidelines scheme based on facts not admitted by Coil or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The court acknowledges that the sentence of 63 months for mail fraud exceeds the 60-month statutory maximum, which also warrants vacating and remanding for resentencing. Regarding the suppression motions, the court concludes that Coil waived his right to appeal by entering an unconditional guilty plea, which forfeits any non-jurisdictional defects, including erroneous pretrial rulings. Thus, the denial of his suppression motions will not be considered on appeal.
Coil contends that 18 U.S.C. § 1465, under which he was convicted for transporting obscene materials, is unconstitutional following the Supreme Court's ruling in *Lawrence v. Texas*. He claims that the statute infringes on the substantive due process rights to possess obscene materials in private, a right linked to the precedent set in *Stanley v. Georgia*. Coil argues he has standing to challenge the statute as a vendor of adult materials, representing the privacy interests of potential purchasers. He asserts that neither the Supreme Court nor his court has determined whether a fundamental right to privacy necessitates strict scrutiny of laws penalizing the transportation or distribution of obscenity among consenting adults. Coil believes that previous cases, including *Stanley* and its descendants, were decided based solely on First Amendment grounds. He cites a previously reversed decision from the Western District of Pennsylvania, which claimed that § 1465 infringes on fundamental rights under the First and Fifth Amendments, arguing that after *Lawrence*, the government lacks a compelling interest in regulating obscene materials for consenting adults. Since Coil did not raise this constitutional issue in the district court, the appellate review will follow the plain error standard, which requires him to demonstrate (1) an error, (2) that the error is clear or obvious, and (3) that the error affects his substantial rights. A conviction based on an unconstitutional statute is deemed both 'plain' and 'error.' The Third Circuit previously addressed and rejected an argument similar to Coil's, reinforcing that the issues raised have already been considered.
The Supreme Court instructs that when a precedent directly applies to a case, even if it contradicts rationale from other decisions, lower courts must adhere to that precedent, leaving any potential overruling to the Supreme Court itself. This principle was established in Rodriguez de Quijas and reaffirmed in Agostini, with the Fifth Circuit consistently following this directive. In regard to Coil's claim, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of federal statutes regulating obscenity distribution, clarifying that the right to possess obscene material in the home does not extend to a right to distribute it. This was emphasized in cases like Thirty-Seven Photographs and Reidel, which rejected the notion of a protected right to distribute obscene materials. The Court also dismissed arguments equating the privacy of the home with a broader right for distributors or consumers of obscene materials. The ruling in Paris Adult Theatre reinforced that commerce in obscene material lacks constitutional protection. Consequently, absent a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary, precedents affirming obscenity laws against First Amendment and substantive due process challenges govern the resolution of Coil's claims. The court upholds that the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence does not invalidate § 1465, affirming Coil's conviction while vacating and remanding the sentence.
Coil asserts in his plea agreement that he did not waive his right to appeal the denial of pretrial motions, yet he has not filed a reply brief or contested the government's claim that he did not enter a conditional plea or preserve an appeal regarding the suppression motions. The government questions Coil's standing to defend the privacy rights of potential purchasers of his obscene materials but does not provide a robust argument against his standing. The Supreme Court has established that vendors can challenge the constitutionality of statutes affecting their customers when such statutes target the vendors' activities. Relevant case law includes Carey v. Population Services International, which affirmed a vendor's standing to contest a state law restricting the sale of contraceptives, and Craig v. Boren, which recognized a beer seller's standing to challenge a statute affecting underage customers. Additionally, United States v. Extreme Assocs., Inc. confirmed that vendors of obscene materials have standing to challenge related federal statutes on behalf of their customers.
