United States of America v. Todd Franklin Stydinger

NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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)).

-- 2 of 2 --