# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 39 86

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Co rey Vict or Bev in s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Octo be r 21 , 20 16 Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 14 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
RILEY, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Co rey Bev in s pl ed gu il ty to pr od u ct io n of ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of
18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a) an d (e), rece ip t of ch il d p or no gr ap hy i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2( a)(2 ) an d (b )(1 ), an d po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at i o n o f18 U.S.C. §§ 11 51
, 22 52 (a)( 4) ( A ), an d 22 52 (b )(2 ). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced 1
Bev in s to 30 0 m on th s in pr is on aft er va ry in g do wnwar d fro m Bev in s’s ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge of 72 0 m on th s. On ap pe al
, Bev in s co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t
pr oc ed ur al ly erre d by im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng hi s Gui d e l i ne s ran ge an d fai li ng ad eq ua te ly to ex pl ai n hi s 30 0- m on th se nt en ce at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. Bev in s al so

as se rts h i s s en te nc e is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e do no t fin d m eri t in an y of
B ev in s’s ch al le ng es

. The refo re, we affi rm hi s se nt en ce. See 28 U.S.C. § 1 2 9 1 (ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ).

I. BACKGRO UND
In Apr il 20 13
, la w en fo rcem en t ag en ts di sc ov ered a ho s t co m pu te r th ey be li ev ed co nt ai ne d ch il d po rn og rap hy fil es

. The co m pu te r’s IP ad dr es s was tra ck ed

to a res id en ce in no rth wes t Mi nn es ot a whe re B ev in s, th en ag e 37
, li ve d wit h hi s

m ot he r an d he r hu sb an d. In Ja nu ary 20 14
, of fic ers ex ecu te d a se arch warra nt on th e
pr op ert y an d s ei zed fou r co m

pu te r to wers , an S D m em or y card , a USB dr iv e, a cel l ph on e, an d 73 CDs th at be lo ng ed to Bev in s. The m em or y card co nt ai ne d fiv e vi de os

an d se ve n im ag es of Bev in s en ga ge d in se xu al act s wit h kn own m in or s, in cl ud in g ni ne -y ear- ol d M.B., a da ug ht er of Bev in s’s co us in

. Bev in s was arre st ed an d

co nf es se d to ha vi ng a si x- m on th “ rel at io ns hi p” wit h M.B. “ a co up le y ears ag o,”

en ga gi ng in se xu al co nd uc t wit h M.B., an d reco rd in g M.B. en ga ge d in se xu al co nd uc t wit h hi m on m

ul ti pl e oc cas io ns

. Offi cers la te r fo un d an ad di ti on al 60 im ag es an d 26 9
vi de os of ch il d po rn og rap hy, whi ch Bev in s ad m it te d he kn owi ng ly do wnl oa de d fro m th e in te rn et

.

The go ve rn m en t fil ed a su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t in Apr il 20 15
, ch arg in g Bev in s wit h ni ne co un ts : co un ts 1 an d 2 fo r pr od uc ti on of ch il d po rn og rap hy, se e 18 U.S.C. § 22 51 (a), (e); co un t 3 fo r at te m pt ed pr od uc ti on of ch il d po rn og rap hy, se e id .; co un ts

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard H. Ky le
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-4 th ro ug h 8 for recei pt of ch il d p or no gr ap hy, se e id

. § 22 52 (a)( 2)
, (b )(1 ); and co un t
9 fo r po ss es si on of ch il d po rn og rap hy, se e id

. §§ 11 51
, 22 52 (a)( 4) (A), (b )(2 ). Bev in s pl ed gu il ty to co un ts 2 (p ro du ct io n)
, 5 (rec ei pt ), an d 9 (p os se ss io n)
, in ex ch an ge fo r th e go ve rn m en t di sm is si ng th e rem ai ni ng si x co un ts

. In th e pl ea ag reem en t, Bev in s fu rth er adm it te d he “ us ed an d a tt em pt ed to us e th e sa m e kn own vi ct im to en ga ge in

se xu al ly ex pl ic it co nd uc t fo r th e pu rp os e of pr od uc in g a vi s u a l d e p ic ti on of su ch

co nd uc t on two ad di ti on al oc cas io ns .” The pl ea ag reem en t m ad e cl ear th is “ [wo ul d]
be co ns id ered rel ev an t co nd uc t fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es .”

The pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) as se ss ed Bev in s’s co nd uc t an d th e pl ea ag reem en t un de r th e ad vi so ry Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es

or U.S.S.G.), an d reco m

m en de d a pr is on se nt en ce of 72 0 m on th s. Bev in s ob jecte d 2

to se ve ral en ha nc em en ts an d ad jus tm en t s a pp li ed in th e PSR. Sp eci fic al ly, Bev in s di sp ut ed th e fiv e le ve ls ad de d fo r pa tt ern ed be ha vi or , se e U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .2(b )(5 ), th e fiv e le ve ls ad de d fo r Bev in s be in g a rep eat an d da ng ero us se x of fen d er, se e id

. § 4B 1.5 (b )(1 ), th e f

o u r l e v e ls ad de d fo r sa di st ic or m as oc hi st ic be ha vi or , se e id

. § 2G2 .1(b )(4 ), an d th e th ree le ve ls ad de d as a res ul t of th e PSR no t gr ou p i n g th e
pr od uc ti on an d at te m

pt ed pr od uc ti on co un ts , se e id

. § 3D1 .4. Bev in s al so as ke d th e di st ric t co ur t to va ry do wnwar d gi ve n “ [i]nd iv id ua li ze[d ] co ns id e r at io n[ s],” an d
be cau se “ th e ch il d po rn og rap hy gu id el in es are es se nt ia ll y un wor ka bl e” an d “ wit ho ut

em pi ric al ba si s.” Bev in s s ug ge st ed a 18 0- m on th se nt en ce— th e st at ut or y m in im um if al l se nt en ces ran co nc ur ren tl y —wo ul d be “m or e th an su ffi ci en t.” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 51 (e), 22 52 (b ), 35 53 (a). W hi le th e go ve rn m en t ag reed a do wnwar d va ria nc e

was ap pr op ria te , it ad vo cat ed for a be lo w-Gui de li ne s s en te nc e o f 36 0 m on th s.

Bev in s’s to ta l of

fen se le ve l ex ceed ed th e le ve l reco gn iz ed by th e Gui de li ne s, 2

a n d t h u s w a s red uc ed fro m 49 to 43

. See U.S.S.G. ch

. 5, pt

. A, cm t. n.2

. Th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e was li fe im pr is on m en t, bu t th e co m

bi ne d m ax im

um te rm al lo wed

un de r th e st at ut es was 72 0 m on th s. S e e 1 8 U

. S

. C

. §§ 22 51 (e), 22 52 (b ); U.S.S.G. ch . 5, p t. A.

-3

-At the se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t rep or te d it ha d rev ie wed th e PSR

an d th e pa rti es ’ po si ti o n pa pe rs reg ard in g Bev in s’s ob jecti on s an d th e se nt en ci ng fact or s. Afte r li st en in g to th e pa rti es ’ or al arg um en ts , th e di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d al l
ob jecti on s t o t he PSR an d s en te nc ed Bev in s as fol lo ws:

W el l, ta ki ng in t o a c c o u n t th e 35 53 (a) fact or s, it ’s m y jud gm en t th at a to ta l se nt en ce in th is cas e, an d I’ll bre ak it do wn, o f 25 y ears in pr is on

m eet s th e ob

jecti ve s of 35 53 (a). And th at wil l be a se nt en ce of 15 y ears

on Co un t 2, 5 y ears on C ou nt 5, 5 y ears on Co un t 9, al l to ru n

co ns ecu ti ve ly for a t ot al of a 25 -y ear [ 30 0- m on th ] se nt en ce.

On ap pe al
, Bev in s ch al le ng es hi s Gui de li ne s ran ge , th e ad eq ua cy of th e di st ric t

co ur t’s ex pl an at io n reg ard in g th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, an d th e su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss of h is sen te nc e.

II

. DISCUSS IO N
In rev ie win g Bev in s’s se nt en ce, we “ m us t fir st en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r, su ch as fai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , tre at in g th e Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to

co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s,

or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en se nt en ce.” Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S.
38 , 51 (20 07 ). If th e d is tri ct co ur t’s sen te nc in g dec is io n is free of pr oc ed ur al erro r,

we “ th en co ns id er th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on a b l e n e ss of th e se nt en ce im po se d.” Id

. Bev in s m ak es sev eral arg um en ts whi ch we ad dr es s i n t ur n.

A. Gui del in es Cal cul at io ns Bev in s fir st arg u e s t h e di st ric t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly erre d by im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng hi s Gui de li ne s ran ge

. “ [W] e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s ap pl ic at io n of th e Gui de li ne s d e n ov o.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Poe , 76 4 F .3d 91 4, 9 17 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

. W e be gi n by no ti ng we ne ed no t ad dr es s Bev in s’s ch al le ng es to th e c a l c u la ti on of hi s ad jus te d of fen se le ve l fo r th e re ce ipt an d poss es sio n co un ts —n am el y , th at a fo ur -le ve l

-4

-en ha nc em en t fo r c o mm i t t in g an of fen se th at in vo lv ed “ m at eri al th at po rtr ay s

. . .
s a d i st ic or m as oc hi st ic co nd uc t” un de r § 2G2 .2(b )(4 ) was un warra nt ed
, th at hi s

co nd uc t was to o “ sp or ad ic ” to su p p o r t a fiv e-l ev el en ha nc em en t fo r “ en ga g[ in g] i n

a pa tt ern of act iv it y ” un de r § 2G2 .2(b )(5 ), an d th at a d d i n g fiv e le ve ls un de r § 4B 1.5 (b )(1 ) fo r b e i n g a “repea t an d da ng ero us se x of fen de r” res ul te d in an im pe rm is s i b l e “dou bl e co un t” whe n pa ire d wit h th e pa tt ern en ha nc em en t. The se is su es ha d no im

pa ct on Bev in s’s Gui de li ne s ran ge

. The rece ip t an d po ss es s io n

co un ts were gr ou pe d wit h th e pr od uc ti on co un t to whi ch Bev i n s pl ed gu il ty. See
U.S.S.G. § 3D1 .2(c ). And th e pr od uc ti on co un t h ad a hi gh er ad jus te d o ffen se le ve l

an d co nt ro ll ed fo r pu rp os es of cal cu la ti n g B e v i n s’s Gui de li ne s ran ge

. See id

. § 3D1 .3, .4. The rece ip t an d po ss es si on co un ts (al on g wit h th e ch al le ng ed in crea se s)
be cam e irr el ev an t as a pr act ic al m at te r. See Fed

. R. Cri m

. P. 52 (a) (h arm le ss erro r).

W e pr oc eed to Bev in s’s arg um en t th at he sh ou ld no t ha ve rece iv ed a fiv e-l ev el

en ha nc em en t fo r be in g a “ rep eat an d da ng ero us se x of fen de r” be cau se § 4B 1.5 (b )(1 )

“ sh ou ld ” req ui re pr oo f of a p r i o r co nv ic ti on

. The Gui de li ne s reject Bev in s’s

pr op os ed read in g. The fiv e-l ev el in crea se un d e r § 4B 1.5 (b )(1 ) ap pl ie s whe n “ th e de fen da nt en ga ge d i n a pa tt ern of act iv it y in vo lv in g p ro hi bi te d s ex ua l co nd uc t.” A

pa tt ern ex is ts if th e de fen da nt en ga ge d in su ch co nd uc t “ on at le as t two se pa rat e

oc cas io ns

. . . wi th ou t reg ard to w h e t h e r th e oc cas io n

. . . r es ul te d in a co nv ic ti on .” U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.5 cm t. n.4 (B); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Go ds ey , 69 0 F.3 d 90 6, 91 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ Unl es s an App li cat io n Not e is cl earl y erro ne ou s or in co nf li ct wit h

t h e C on st it ut io n, a fed eral st at ut e, or th e gu id el in e it se lf, th e no te is bi nd in g on a di st ric t co ur t.”)

. The PSR no te d “ Bev in s crea te d at le as t two vi de os de pi ct in g ch il d

po rn og rap hy on se p arat e da te s” an d ad m it te d to en ga gi ng in pr oh ib it ed se xu al

co nd uc t o n mu l t i p l e oc cas io ns

. Thi s co nd uc t is su ffi ci en t to m ak e Bev in s a rep eat

an d d an ge ro us sex off

en de r tr ig ge rin g § 4B 1.5 (b )(1 ).

W e al so fin d th e fo ur -le ve l e n ha nc em en t un de r § 2G2 .1(b )(4 ) warra nt ed
be cau se , as th e en ha nc em en t req ui res , “t he of fen se in vo lv ed m at eri al th at po rtr ay s

-5

-sa di st ic or m as oc hi st ic co nd uc t or ot he r de pi ct io ns of vi ol en ce.” The Gui de li ne s do

no t de fin e th es e te rm s, bu t we ha ve pr ev i o u s l y h e l d im ag es sh owi ng an ad ul t m al e

e n g a g in g (o r at te m

pt in g to en ga ge in ) in te rco ur se or or al se x wit h a m in o r w e r e in cl ud ed wit hi n th e pr ov is io n’s sc op e. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Diaz
, 36 8 F.3 d 99 1,
99 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). Bev in s pr od uc ed vi de os sh owi ng hi m at te m pt in g to pe ne tra te

an d pe ne tra ti ng M.B. de sp it e h er re si st an ce. The vi de os pl ai nl y co ns ti tu te m at eri al
th at warran te d t he fou r-l ev el en ha nc em en t u nd er § 2G2 .1(b )(4 ).

Last ly, th e PSR a dd ed th ree le ve ls to Bev in s’s co m bi ne d of fen se le ve l un de r § 3 D 1

. 4 b ecau se , al th ou gh Bev in s pl ed gu il ty to on ly on e pr od uc ti on co un t, he

st ip ul at ed to th e co nd uc t th at ga ve ris e to th e di sm is se d pr od uc ti on an d at te m pt ed

pr od uc ti on co un ts

. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1 .2(c ). Bev in s pro po se s th e th ree pr od uc ti on

co un ts sh ou ld ha ve be en gr ou pe d be cau se th ey “ in vo lv ed th e sa m e vi ct im
, th e sa m e
pa tt ern ,” an d “ ‘sub st an ti al ly th e sa m e ha rm ’” su ch th at th ey sh ou ld h av e be en
gr ou pe d un de r § 3D1 .2. Our pr eced en t fo recl os es th is pr op os it io n. Each ti m e Bev in s
pr od uc ed vi de os of M.B. en ga ge d in se xu al co nd uc t, “ he in fli ct ed a se pa rat e an d
dis tin ct harm up on th at ch il d; th eref or e, hi s act io ns can no t be co ns id ered su bs ta nt ia lly
th e sa m e ha rm fo r gr ou pi ng pu rp os es un de r § 3D1 .2.” Uni te d St at es v. Kiel
, 45 4 F.3 d
81 9, 82 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ); se e al so U.S.S.G. § 3D1 .2 cm t. n.4

. Bev in s’s to ta l of fen se le ve l an d Gu id el in es ran ge were co rrec tl y cal cu la te d.

B. Reco rd Adeq ua cy Bev in s al so cla im s t he di st ric t co ur t “ fai l[e d] to m ak e an ad eq ua te reco rd ” o f why t he 30 0- m on th se nt en ce “ is jus ti fie d” in li gh t of th e fact or s li st ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). It is of c o u r s e t r ue a di st ric t co ur t is req ui red to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a)
fact or s an d “ m

us t ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en se nt en ce to al lo w f o r m ean in gf

ul

ap pe ll a t e r e v i e w.” Gall
, 55 2 U.S. at 50 ; se e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (c); Ri ta v. Uni te d
St at es , 55 1 U.S. 33 8, 35 6- 59 (2 00 7)

. It is al so tru e th e se nt en ci ng ex pl an at io n in th is

cas e was su cci nc t, an d th e di st ric t co ur t “ m ig ht ha v e sa id m or e.” Ri ta , 55 1 U.S. at 35 8- 59 (“ He m

us t ha ve be li ev ed th at th ere was no t m uc h m or e to sa y .”). Bev in s di d

-6

-no t ob

ject to th e ad eq ua cy of th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

an d rai se s th is cl ai m fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

. The go ve rn m en t ci te s Uni te d St at es

v. Max well
, 77 8 F.3 d 71 9, 73 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ), to arg ue su ch fai lu re to ob ject waiv es
t h e is su e; ho wev er, a su bs eq ue nt op in io n cl ari fie d we do “ ro ut in el y

. . . co nd uc t [ ] pl ai n- erro r rev ie w of cl ai m s th at a di st ric t co ur t fai le d ad eq ua te ly to ex pl ai n a ch os en

se nt en ce.” Un it ed Sta te s v . Cha va rri a-Ort iz , 82 8 F.3 d 66 8, 67 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ); cf.
Max well
, 77 8 F.3 d at 73 4- 35 (ap pl y in g pl ai n- erro r rev ie w de sp it e de cl ari ng th e co ur t

wou ld “ no t s us ta in a pr oc ed ur al ch al le ng e . . . by a de fen da nt who di d no t ob ject t o th e a d e q u a c y of th e co ur t’s ex pl an at io n at se nt en ci ng ”). “ As a pr act ic al m at te r, ho wev er, a fo rfei te d ch al le ng e to th e ad eq ua cy of a di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n fo r a

se nt en ce . . . faces lo ng od ds .” Ch av arri a-Ort iz , 82 8 F .3d at 6 71

.

W e st art wit h th e w el l-s et tl ed pr in ci pl e th at whe n co ns id eri ng th e § 35 53 (a)
fact or s, “ [a] di st ric t co ur t is no t req ui red to m ak e sp eci fic fin di ng s; al l th at is

ge ne ral ly req ui red to sa ti sf y th e ap pe ll at e co ur t is ev id en ce th at th e di st ric t co ur t was

aware of th e rel ev an t fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Perk in s, 52 6 F.3 d 11 07
, 11 10 (8 th
Ci r. 20 08 ). Here th ere can be no do ub t th e di st ric t co ur t was a w a r e o f
, an d in de ed

co ns id ered an d a pp li ed , th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s— th is is m ad e ob vi ou s b y th e fac t t he
di st ric t cou rt di d va ry do wnwar d. Fu rth erm or e, th e di st ric t cou rt had at it s di sp os al
th e PSR, whi ch di sc us se d th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d “ co nt ai n[ ed ] ex te ns iv e in fo rm at io n reg ard in g [Bev in s], hi s hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs , th e n a t u re an d
ci rcu m st an ces of th e of

fen se , t he ki nd s o f se nt en ces av ai la bl e, an d a reco m m en de d
ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es r a n g e, al l of whi ch are fact or s un de r § 35 53 (a).”
Uni te d St at es v. Jo ne s, 49 3 F.3 d 93 8, 94 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ), va cat ed
, 55 2 U.S. 1 0 9 1,

an d rei ns ta te d pe r c u r i a m , 27 5 F. App ’x 56 1, 56 2 n.2 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). The di st ric t

co ur t al so no te d on th e reco rd th at it read th e pa rti es ’ po si ti on pa pe rs reg ard in g th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, an d th e di st ric t co ur t lis te ne d to th e pa rti es ’ or al arg um en ts at th e he ari ng

. See U n i te d St at es v. Jo hn so n, 61 9 F.3 d 91 0, 92 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ [T]he
di st ric t co ur t was aware of [d efen da nt ’s] arg um en ts , a nd we th eref or e pr es um e th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered an d reject ed th em .”). Bev in s “ po in ts to no th in g to

-7

-s u g g e s t a reas on ab le pr ob ab il it y th at th e di st ric t co ur t wou ld ha ve im po se d a m o r e le ni en t se nt en ce if th e co ur t ha d el ect ed to di sc us s th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of th e se nt en ce
at gr eat er le ng th .” Ch av arri a-Ort iz
, 82 8 F.3 d at 67 2. In li gh t of al l th es e reas on s we

are co nv in ced th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl an at io n, th ou gh br ie f, w a s no t so pl ai nl y in ad eq ua te as t o war ran t re ve rs al

.

C. Sent ence Reas on ab le nes s Hav in g fo un d no pr oc ed ur al erro r, we are le ft wit h Bev in s’s co nt en ti on th at hi s

se nt en c e i s su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce “ un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd .” Gall
, 55 2 U.S. at 41

. Here, th e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Bev in s to 30 0 m on th s in pr is on —a te rm 42 0 m on th s (3 5 y ears ) sh or te r th an hi s adv is or y Gui de li ne s rang e. Afte r Gal l, i t i s an “ ‘unu su al

cas e whe n we rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t se nt en ce

. . . as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le ,’ ”
Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 9 ) ( e n ba nc ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Gard el li ni
, 54 5 F.3 d 10 89
, 10 90 (D.C. Ci r. 20 08 )), an d it is “ ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e” th at a se nt en ce is so hi gh as to be su bs ta nt iv el y un re a s o n a b l e an d

co ns ti tu te an ab us e of di sc ret io n whe n th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d a be lo w-Gui de li ne s

se nt en ce, Uni te d St at es v. Lazar sk i, 56 0 F.3 d 73 1, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). The se nt en ce im po se d was no t u nr eas on ab ly hig h.

II I. CONCLUSI ON
W e aff irm.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-8

-