UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _______________

No. 24-2460 _______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

RANDAL WISE, Appellant _______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 3:20-cr-00102-001) District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp _______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on March 24, 2025

Before: BIBAS, PHIPPS, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Filed: April 22, 2025) David E. Schafer Suite 207 2273 State Highway 33 Trenton, NJ 08690 Counsel for Appellant Mark E. Coyne UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 970 Broad Street Room 700 Newark, NJ 07102 Norman Gross UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Camden Federal Building & Courthouse 401 Market Street Camden, NJ 08101 Counsel for Appellee

_______________

OPINION OF THE COURT _______________ BIBAS, Circuit Judge. Randal Wise lobs a slew of challenges to his convictions and sentence for possessing child pornography, attempting to entice a minor, and attempting to transfer obscene matter to a minor. All fail. In so ruling, we hold that a smartphone counts as a computer under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(6). I. THE STING On Grindr (a gay dating and chat app), Wise had the username “Cuddle??” He used the app to reach out to “Steve,” a cop posing as a fourteen-year-old boy. Wise sent him two

2 photos of a penis and asked him to come over and have sex. But then “Steve’s” account crashed. The next day, Wise went back onto Grindr and pinged “Sean,” another cop posing as an eighth-grade boy. Wise sent “Sean” four photos of a penis and four times asked him to reciprocate. He suggested that “Sean” come to his hotel, but “Sean” demurred. The day after that, Wise again contacted “Sean” on Grindr. Wise asked if “Sean” wanted to hang out at his place or Wise’s. “Sean” suggested his own place. Wise got “Sean’s” address, asked him to “[s]end a nude,” and followed up with, “U wanted to do sexual stuff?” App. 162. About twenty minutes later, Wise walked over to “Sean’s” address, holding an iPhone, and was arrested. His phone contained sexual chats and child por- nography of a thirteen-year-old boy. Wise was charged with possessing and transporting child pornography, attempting to entice a minor online, and attempt- ing to transfer obscene matter to a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1470, 2422(b), 2252A(a)(1), 2252A(a)(5)(B). The trial court denied his motion to sever these charges. The jury con- victed on all counts, and the judge sentenced him to 288 months in prison. II. JOINING THE CHARGES AND NOT SEVERING THEM WAS PROPER On appeal, Wise first claims that his charges should not have been joined, or else that the District Court should have severed them. We review joinder de novo and severance for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lacerda, 958 F.3d 196, 224 (3d Cir. 2020); United States v. Davis, 397 F.3d 173, 182

3 (3d Cir. 2005). The charges were properly joined because they were “of the same or similar character.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a). As the District Court explained in denying the motion, “they all involve the sexual exploitation of minors.” App. 55; accord United States v. Rivera, 546 F.3d 245, 253–54 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Hersh, 297 F.3d 1233, 1242 (11th Cir. 2002). Nor did the District Court abuse its discretion by denying the motion to sever. Severance is called for only if the defend- ant can show that joinder would prejudice him. Fed. R. Crim. P. 14. Wise cannot. His crimes were all