[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 06 8 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 1- cr-0 00 77 -LC-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us MIC HAEL E . KNIGHT, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 14 , 20 12 ) Befo re MAR TIN, JORDAN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mi ch ael Kni gh t ap pe al s h is sen te nc e o f 72 m on th s i m pr is on m en t, wh ic h Case: 12-11068 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 1 of 5was im

po se d fo ll owi ng hi s p le a o f gu il ty to o ne co un t o f po ss es si on of c hi ld po rn og rap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 25 2A( a)(5 )(B) an d (b )(2 ). The d is tri ct co urt d et erm in edth atKni gh t’s o ffen se lev el was 2 9 a ndhi s cr im in al hi st ory cat eg ory was I, t hu s yield in g agu id el in e ran ge of 8 7 m on th s t o 1 08 m on th s im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co urt d is ag reed , ho wev er, wit h t he po li cy un de rlyin g th e g ui de li ne s’ app li cat io n o f a two- le ve l en ha nc em en t i n t he off en se lev el for Kni gh t’s u se of aco m

pu te r. The d is tri ctco urt the refo re v ari eddo wnwar d and im po se d asen te nc e o f 72 m on th s i m pr is on m en t. Onap pe al , Kni gh t as ks us to set as id e th is sen te nc e o n the gro un d t ha t i t i s b ot h p ro cedur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . I.

“ A di st ric t co urt s ho ul d e ns ur e th atitco m m it s n o p ro cedur al erro r in im po si ng sen te nc e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Tob in , 67 6 F .3d12 64 , 13 09 (11 thCir . 20 12 ). A pro cedur al erro r oc cu rs if t he di stric t co urt 1 ) fai ls to pro pe rly calc ul at e th e g ui de li ne ran ge , 2) t reat s t he gu id el in es as m an da to ry , 3) fa il s t o c on si de r th e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, 4 ) se le ct s a s en te nc e b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, or5) f ai ls to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os ensen te nc e. See Un it edSta te s v . W ay ers ki , 62 4 F .3d13 42 , 13 53 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). Kni gh t fi rs t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredbe cau se ittre at edth e 2 Case: 12-11068 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 2 of 5gu id el in es as m an da to ry . W e rejectth is arg um en t b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt’s

de ci si on to im

po se a se nt en ce b el ow t he gu id el in e ran ge cle arl y de m on st rat es it s un de rs ta nd in g t ha t the gu id el in es are ad vi so ry . Kni gh t al so ass ert s t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t ad equa te ly exp la in th e se nt en ce i t i m po se d. He sp eci fic al ly not es th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t d is cu ss th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of h is off en se or hi s p ers on al hi st ory

an d c haract eri st ic s. Thi s ar gu m en t al so fai ls . W e h av e lo ng he ldth ata di st ric t co urt i s n otrequi redto “ di sc us s ea ch of t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s” at s en te nc in g. Un it edSta te s v . Sco tt , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Ins te ad , itis su ffi ci en t fo r a d is tri ctco urt t o a ckno wled ge th atit ha s co ns id eredth e d efen da nt ’s arg um en ts an d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. See id . at 13 29 –3 0. Here , th e d is tri ctco urt co nf irmed atsen te nc in g tha t i t h adrev ie wedth e se nt en ci ng m em or an du m Kni gh t fi le d i n s up po rt o f a d own wardvarianc e. That do cu m en t s pe ci fic al ly dis cu ss edth e n atur e o f th e o ffen se , as wel l as th e h is to ry an d c haract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt . Also , th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d a t s en te nc in g th atitha d c on si de redth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. The d is tri ctco urt the refo re d idall 1 th atitwas re qu ire d t o d o. Se e id . II.

In light of this, we a lso rejec t Knight’ s argument that the district court fa iled to consider 1 the § 3553(a ) fac tors. 3

Case: 12-11068 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 3 of 5Kni gh t al so ch al le ng es hi s s en te nc e as subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . W e ev al ua te th e subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e u nd er the de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard . Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 46 , 12 8 S . Ct. 58 6, 5 94 (20 07 ). Und er tha t s ta nd ard , we m ay va cat e a s en te nc e o nl y

if we a re

“ le ft wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s.” Un it edSta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F.3 d 1 16 0, 1 19 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (enba nc ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Alth ou gh we do no t p res um e th ata se nt en ce fa ll in g wi th in a gu id el in e ran ge is reas on ab le , we or di na ril y

ex pe ctth atitis . See Un it edSta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 87 –8 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Kni gh t’s p rin ci pa l ar gu m en t i n t hi s re ga rdis th atth e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es go ve rn in g c hi ldpo rn og rap hy offen se s, U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 , are fu nd am en ta ll y fla wedan d t ha t, as a res ul t, the di st ric t co urt erredby giv in g t he m si gn ifi can t weig ht . Kni gh t draws ou r at te nt io n t o t he Seco ndCir cu it ’s dec is io n i n Un it ed St at es v. Do rv ee, 6 16 F.3d17 4 (2 d C ir. 2 01 0) . There , ou r si st er ci rcu itva cat eda wit hi n- gu id el in e se nt en ce fo r a ch il d p orno gr ap hy offen se as s ub st an ti ve ly un reas on ab le . Id. at17 6. Th e co urt o bs erv edth atU.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 is “ an ecce nt ric Gui de li ne of h ig hl y un us ua l p ro ve na nc e whi ch , un le ss care fu ll y ap pl ie d, can eas il y ge ne rat e unr eas on ab le res ul ts .” Id . at 1 88 . 4 Case: 12-11068 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 4 of 5The go ve rn m en t i s co rrec t t o p oi ntou t, h owe ve r, th atth is Co urt h as

pr ev io us ly rejectedth e su gg es ti on th atU.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 is in he ren tl y fla wed . See W ay ers ki , 62 4 F .3dat 1 35 4– 55 (di sm is si ng th e arg um en t tha t “ th e Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s fo r ch il d- po rn og rap hy offen se s ar e irrat io na l an d n otem pi ric al ly ba se d” ); Un it edSta te s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 12 01 n.1 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (rejec ti ng th e arg um en t tha t the ch il d- po rn og rap hy gu id el in es “ ex hi bi t the de fic ie nc ie s” pre vi ou sl y

fou ndin th e cra ck -co cai ne gu id el in es ). In v ie w of thi s pr eced en t, wh ic h h as no t b een ov erru le d b y th is Co urt s it ti ng enbanc or b y th e Supr em e Co urt, we m

us t re ject Kn ig ht ’s arg um en t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Kaley, 57 9 F .3d12 46 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ); a cco rdUni te d S ta te s v . Sco tt , No. 1 1- 13 61 7, 2 01 2 WL 16 48 87 2, at*1 (11 th Cir . May 11 , 20 12 ). III. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco urt. AFFIRMED.

5 Case: 12-11068 Date Filed: 11/14/2012 Page: 5 of 5