[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 53 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :1 1- cr-6 01 78 -J EM-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, ve rs us DUANE G ILLETTE , 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 So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st1, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Dua ne Gil le tt e ap pe al s t he pro cedur al an d s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of h is Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 1 of 1224 0- m on th sen te nc e fo r di st rib ut io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy. On ap pe al , Gil le tt e

arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e is pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt d id no t co ns id er h is arg um en ts or t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s. He arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se itwas l on ge r th an ne ces sa ry gi ve n t he ch arac te ris ti cs of h is off en se . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm Gil le tt e’s se nt en ce. I. InNov em

be r 20 10 , Gil le tt e se ntan d re cei ve d, v iaem ai l, ch il d p orno gr ap hy. Fed eral Bu reauof I nv es ti ga ti on ag en ts sea rch edhi s h om e an d s to rag e uni t i n J un e 20 11 an d fo un d m or e th an40 0 v id eo s an d m or e th an2,0 00 im ag es de pi ct in g c hi ld po rn og rap hy. The im ag es in cl ud edy ou ng ch il dr en , in fan ts , andbo nd ag e in vo lv in g m in or s. Gil le tt e p le ad edgu il ty to d is tri bu ti ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 2( a)(2 ). His pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti onrep ort (“ PSI” ) as si gn edhi m a ba se off en se lev el of 2 2, u nd er U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 ; a 2 -le ve l i nc reas e, un de r § 2 G2.2 (b )(2 ), be cau se th e p orno gr ap hy inv ol ve d am in or un de r th e ag e o f 12 ; a 5- le ve l i nc reas e, un de r § 2 G2.2 (b )(3 )(B) , bec au se th e o ffen se in vo lv eddi st rib ut io n in ex ch an ge for

a th in g o f va lu e; a 4- le ve l i nc reas e, un de r § 2 G2.2 (b )(4 ), be cau se th e p orno gr ap hy po rtr ay edsad is ti c o r m as oc hi st ic co nduc t; a 2- le ve l i nc reas e, 2 Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 2 of 12un de r § 2 G2.2 (b )(6 ), be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv e a co m pu te r; a nda 5- le ve l in crea se , un de r § 2 G2.2 (b )(7 )(D), b ecau se th e o ffen se in vo lv edat l eas t 6 00 im ag es . Gill ette rece iv eda 3- le ve l re du ct io n, u nd er U.S.S.G. § 3 E1.1 , for acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity , whi ch ga ve hi m a to ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 7. Gi ll et te rece iv ed1 cr im in al hi st ory po in t fo r a s ta te co nv ic ti on in20 03 forlewdor la sc iv io us ex hi bi ti on to anin di vi du al un de r th e ag e o f 16 . He was s en te nc edto fiv e y ears ’ pr ob at io n i n tha t ca se , andhe was re qu ire d t o re gi st er as a se x o ffen de r in Flo rid a. In19 93 , he h adbe enarre st edforin de cen t as saul t o f a ch il d u nd er the ag e o f 16 . The ad

jud ic at io n was withh el d i n tha t ca se , andGil le tt e rec ei ve d t wo y ears ’ pr ob at io n. He re cei ve d n o c riminal hi st ory po in ts for

th e 1 99 3 o ffen se . Gil le tt e’s cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory was I. Ba se d o n ato ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 7 a nd a cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory of I , Gil le tt e’s gu id el in e ran ge was 2 10 to 26 2 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Bec au se th e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e was 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, u nd er U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 , hi s g ui de li ne ran ge be cam e 2 10 to 24 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Pri orto th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Gil le tt e o bjec te d t o t he PSI, arg ui ng th at , un de r Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z , 64 F.3d63 8 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) , he s ho ul d re cei ve a d own wardde pa rtu re fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y . He ass ert edth at , witho ut su ch a reduc ti on , hi s g ui de li ne ran ge wou ldbe ab ov e th e st atut ory m ax im um 3 Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 3 of 12se nt en ce an d h e wou ldno t b en efi t fr om hi s ac cep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y . Gill et te al so m ov edfora do wnwar d v ari an ce o n g ro un ds th at , am on g o th er re as on s, h e h ad ex hi bi te d e xc ep ti on al acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y , he h adgo odpro sp ect s fo r reh ab il it at io n, an d h is cri m e was anan om al y inhi s l ife . In a l et te r to th e co urt, Gil le tt e acc ep te d re sp on si bi li ty andex pr es se d re m or se forhi s ac ti on s, ex pl ai ne d th atab us e h e ex pe rie nc edas ach il d i nf lu en cedhi s ac ti on s, an d s ta te d tha t h e was worki ng to ge t wel l an d c ha ng e h is li fe. Fi na ll y , Gil le tt e subm it te d t wo ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on s an d anu m be r of let te rs th athi s fr ie nd s h adwrit te n i n supp ort o f hi m . At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , Gil le tt e arg ue d t ha t a 3 -le ve l re du ct io n fo r acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity was i ns uf

fic ie ntbe cau se , with t ha t re du ct io n, the gu id el in e ran ge wou ldno ne th el es s i nc lu de th e 2 40 -m on th st atut ory m ax im um se nt en ce. A do wnwar d v ari an ce o r de pa rtu re fo r acc ep tanc e o f res po ns ib il it y was th us ap pr op ria te be cau se , witho uton e, Gil le tt e wou ldno t b en efi t fr om th e acce pt an ce-o f-re sp on si bi li ty redu ct io n due to th e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e. The co urt s ta te d t ha t Gi ll et te ’s gu id el in e ran ge ha d a lre ady be enlo wereddu e to th e st atut ory

m ax im um sen te nc e b ei ng be lo w th e h ig h e ndof t he ran ge . Alth ou gh Gil le tt e’s arg um en t was in te res ti ng , th ere was no co m pe ll in g re as on to im

po se a do wnwar d v ari an ce o r de partu re, an d t he co urt d ecl in edto do so . 4 Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 4 of 12As t o Gi ll et te ’s off en se , th e co urt s ta te d t ha t thi s ca se was o ne of t he m or e eg reg io us “ no nc on ta ct ” ch il d p orno gr ap hy case s i t h adsee n. Ad di ti on al ly, ch il d po rn og rap hy crim es were n otvi ct im le ss cri m es . Gill ette ackno wled ge d t ha t h is cri m e was no t a v ic ti m le ss cri m e, bu t h e al so arg ue d t ha t h e h adno t h adco nt act with a ny of th e v ic ti m s. Th e co urt re sp on de d t ha t the gu id el in e cal cu la ti on s al read y to okin to acco un t the factth atGil le tt e h adno t h adco nt actwith t he vi ct im s. Gil le tt e ag reed , bu t ar gu edth athe was unl ik el y to co m mitfutur e of fen se s. In Nov em

be r 20 10 , bef

or e th e g ov ern m en t fo un d Gi ll et te ’s chi ld po rn og rap hy, he h adpu t h is co m pu te r in st or ag e, an d h e h adno t p os se ss edch il d po rn og rap hy sin ce tha t t im e. Gil le tt e h adals o s ou gh t treat m en t fo r hi s b eh av io r. Thro ug h t ho se act io ns , Gil le tt e h adex hi bi te d a n e xc ep ti on al acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il it y

an d t he refo re d es erv eda do wnwar d d ep artur e. The co urt s ta te d t ha t i t h adreadth e le tt ers an d p sycho lo gi cal rep orts th at Gil le tt e h adsubm it te d. As to Gil le tt e’s se nt en ce, the co urt s ta te d t ha t, al th ou gh th e ad vi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge s fo r ch il d p orno gr ap hy offen se s s om et im es see m ed

“ dr aco ni an ,” th is cas e was no t Gi ll et te ’s firs t o ffen se in vo lv in g c hi ldren . Add it io na ll y , Gil le tt e h adpo ss es se d alar ge nu m be r of im ag es . The co urt n ot ed th atitha d i m

po se d b el ow- gu id el in e se nt en ces incas es wher e, un li ke Gil le tt e, th e de fen da nt s h adpo ss es se d o nl y a sm al l n um

be r of im ag es . Mor eo ve r, al th ou gh th e 5 Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 5 of 12gu id el in e ran ge m ig htbe ha rs h, Co ng res s u lt im at el y ha d t he “ rig htto de cl are t he wil l o f th e p eo pl e” an d t o p ro m ul ga te gu id el in e ran ge s t o re fle ctth e ap pr op ria te se nt en ce i n apa rti cu la r cas e. The c ou rt b el ie ve d t ha t the gu id el in e ran ge s pr om ul ga te d b y

th e Sen te nc in g C ommis si on were u su al ly fair, an d t he co urt d id no t b el ie ve th atGil le tt e’s cas e was on e in whi ch a se nt en ce o ut si de th e g ui de li ne ran ge was app ro pr ia te , parti cu la rly giv enGil le tt e’s pr ev io us be havi or . Add it io na ll y , th e co urt fo un d i t u nf ortu na te th atFlo rid a h adno t i m po se d m or e m ean in gf

ul puni sh m en ts inGil le tt e’s pr io r cas es be cau se , hadth e st at e d on e so , perhaps Gil le tt e wou ldha ve st op pe d h is il le ga l co nduc t ea rli er an d n ev er co m m it te d t he in st an t o ffen se . The co urt h adco ns id eredth e p art ie s’ st at em en ts ; th e PSI, wh ic h c on ta in edth e ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge ; an d t he st atut ory se nt en ci ng fact or s. A se nt en ce atth e h ig h e ndof t he gu id el in e ran ge was ne ces sa ry to refl ectGil le tt e’s rep eat edm is co nduc t i nv ol vi ng ch il dr en . Thu s, the co urt s en te nc edGil le tt e to 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. II. W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e und er a d efer en ti al ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 91 , 16 9 L.Ed .2d44 5 (2 00 7) . Und er the ab us e o f di sc ret io n s tand ard , a se nt en ce wi ll be affi rm edun le ss we fin d t ha t the di st ric t co urt h as m ad e a cl ear e rro r of 6 Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 6 of 12jud gm en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ),

cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 1 81 3 (2 01 1) . “ [W] e wil l n otsec on d g ue ss th e wei gh t (o r la ckth ereo f) tha t the [di st ric t co urt] acco rd edto a gi ve n fa ct or. . . as lo ng as t he se nt en ce u lt im at el y

im po se d i s re as on ab le inli gh t o f al l th e ci rcu m st an ces pr es en te d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. S ni pe s , 61 1 F .3d85 5, 8 72 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The p arty

ch al le ng in g asen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atit is un reas on ab le . Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Inrev ie win g t he reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e, we co nduc t a t wo- st ep rev ie w, firs t en su rin g t ha t the sen te nc e was pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, m ean in g t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly calc ul at edth e g ui de li ne ran ge , tre at edth e g ui de li ne ran ge as a dv is ory , con si de redth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, d idno t s el ecta se nt en ce b as ed on cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, an d “ ad equa te ly exp la in [ed ] th e ch os ensen te nc e.” Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7. Atth e ti m e o f se nt en ci ng , th e co urt m us t st at e it s re as on s fo r im

po si ng a pa rti cu la r se nt en ce. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (c). Howev er, the co urt i s n otrequi red“ to st at e o n t he reco rdth atitha s ex pl ic it ly co ns id eredeach of t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s o r to di sc us s ea ch of t he § 3 55 3( a) fact or s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. S co tt , 42 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Rathe r, it is withi n t he di st ric t co urt’s “ own pro fes si on al jud gm en t” to de te rm in e th e d et ai l ne ces sa ry init s s ta te m en t o f rea so ns . Rita v . Uni te d Sta tes , 55 1 U.S. 3 38 , 35 6, 7 Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 7 of 1212 7 S .Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 8, 1 68 L.Ed.2d20 3 (2 00 7) . It m ay be cle ar fro m

th e ci rcu m st an ces of the cas e th atth e d is tri ctco urt re st s i ts “ de ci si on up on th e [Sen te nc in g] Co m

m is si on ’s ownreas on in g t ha t the Gui de li ne s s en te nc e is a pr op er se nt en ce (i n t erm s o f § 3 55 3( a) an d o th er co ng res si on al m an da te s) inth e typi cal cas e, an d t ha t the [co urt] has fou ndth atth e cas e b efo re [i t] is typic al .” Id . at 3 57 , 12 7 S .Ct. at24 68 . Thu s, the co urt’s ac kn owl ed gm en t tha t i t h as co ns id eredth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s t og ethe r wit h t he pa rti es ’ arg um en ts is su ffi ci en t. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F.3 d a t 7 86 . In Rod ri gu ez , whi ch was d eci de d wh enth e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es were s ti ll m an da to ry , we hel d t ha t a d is tri ctco urt h as th e d is cret io n t o d ep artdo wnwar d whe n § 5G1 .1(a )—wh ic h s et s t he gu id el in e ran ge at t he st atut ory m ax im um wher e th e b ot to m

of t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge ex ceed s t he st atut ory m ax im um — ren de rs § 3 E1.1 in effe ctua l i n re du ci ng th e d efen da nt ’s actua l s en te nc e. 64 F.3dat 64 3. Onc e we d et erm in e th ata se nt en ce i s p ro cedur al ly sou nd , we m us t ex am in e whe th er the sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 . The d is tri ctco urt i s re qu ire d t o

“ im po se a se nt en ce s uf

fic ie nt , bu t n otgre at er tha n n eces sa ry , to co m pl y with t he pu rp os es setforth in ” § 35 53 (a)( 2) . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). The se pu rp os es in cl ud e 8 Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 8 of 12th e n eedto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pr ov id e jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er cr im in al co nduc t, an d p ro te ctth e publ ic fro m

th e d efen da nt ’s futur e cri m in al co nduc t. Id. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). The co urt m us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se , th e d efen da nt ’s hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s, the ki nd s o f se nt en ces av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , th e ne edto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s, an d t he ne edto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. Id. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ). W e o rd in ari ly exp ecta se nt en ce withi n t he gu id el in e ran ge to be reas on ab le . Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 . Chi ld po rn og rap hy crim es are s eri ou s o ffen se s, p art ic ul arl y inli gh t o f th e p sycho lo gi cal ha rm th atth e ch il d v ic ti m s fa ce ev enas a du lt s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d 11 79 , 11 95 -9 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8) . Gil le tt e’s se nt en ce i s b ot h p ro cedur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le . As to pr oc edur al reas on ab le ne ss , th e co urt p ro pe rly calc ul at edth e g ui de li ne ran ge , tre at edth atran ge as a dv is ory , st at edth atitco ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, ex pl ai ne d t ha t g ui de li ne ran ge s as de te rm in edby the Sen te nc in g C omm is si on were ge ne ral ly fair, an d d et erm in edth ata se nt en ce wi th in Gil le tt e’s gu id el in e ran ge was fai r gi ve n the cir cu m st an ces of t hi s ca se . Con tra ry to Gil le tt e’s arg um en ts on ap pe al , th e co urt d idco ns id er Gi ll et te ’s arg um en ts an d t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Th e 9 Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 9 of 12co urt fi rs t co ns id eredGil le tt e’s arg um en t re ga rd in g a n a dd it io na l re du ct io n fo r

acce pt an ce o f res po ns ib il ity . The co urt n ot edth atitwas a n i nt eres ti ng arg um en t, bu t tha t the re was no co m pe ll in g re as onto furth er re du ce Gi ll et te ’s gu id el in e ran ge . Mor eo ve r, co nt rary to Gi ll ette ’s con te nt io n, Rod ri gu ezis in ap pl ic ab le he re. Unl ik e th e d is tri ctco urt i n Rod ri gu ez , th e d is tri ctco urt i n t hi s ca se di d n ottre at th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es as m an da to ry , andth e b ot to m of Gi ll et te ’s gu id el in e ran ge di d n otex ceedhi s s ta tu to ry m ax im um sen te nc e. Se e 64 F.3dat 6 43 . Gil le tt e arg ue s o n app eal th atth e co urt i m pr op erl y de ni edhi s re qu es t fo r an ad di ti on al reduc ti onsi m

pl y be cau se th e co urt was un happ y th atGil le tt e rec ei ve d a br eakdu e to th e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e. Gil le tt e m is read s t he reco rd . In st at in g t ha t the st atut ory

m ax im um sen te nc e p ro vi de d Gi ll et te a br eak , th e co urt was m erel y

no ti ng th atGil le tt e’s gu id el in e ran ge , aft er a re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e of res po ns ib il it y , wou ldha ve be en21 0 t o 2 62 m on th s. Du e to th e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e, ho wev er, the hi gh en d o f Gil le tt e’s gu id el in e ran ge was reduc edfro m

26 2 t o 2 40 m on th s. Thus , th e co urt was co rrec t tha t the st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e h adactua ll y

be ne fit te d Gi ll et te interm s o f th e g ui de li ne cal cu la ti on s, an d the co urt’s s ta te m en t was no t i m pr op er. Gil le tt e al so mis read s th e rec or d a s t o t he co urt’s s ta te m en ts reg ard in g h is st at e co urt cr im es . The co urt di d n otst at e th atitwas i m po si ng a 24 0- m on th sen te nc e b ecau se Flo rid a h adbe en

10 Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 10 of 12to o l en ie ntinpu ni sh in g Gi ll et te , as Gi ll ette ass ert s o n app eal . Rath er, the co urt

st at edth atth os e le ni en t p un is hm en ts were u nf ortu na te be cau se m or e m ean in gf ul pu ni sh m en ts m ig hthave de te rredGil le tt e fro m co m m it ti ng th e in st an t o ffen se . Mo reo ve r, itis cle ar fro m th e rec or d t ha t the co urt co ns id eredGil le tt e’s se nt en ci ng arg um en ts an d t he § 3 55 3( a) fac to rs . For e xam pl e, as to th e n atur e o f th e o ffen se , th e co urt n ot edth atGil le tt e’s co nduc t was am on gs t the m os t eg reg io us no nc on ta ctco nduc t the co urt h adsee n i n c hi ldpo rn og rap hy case s. Th e co urt al so ex pr es sl y

st at edth atitha d c on si de redth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts ; the PSI, whi chco nt ai ne d the advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge ; an d t he st atut ory fact or s. As to th e gu id el in e ran ge an d Gi ll ette ’s per so na l h is to ry an d c ha ract eri st ic s, the co urt ex pl ai ne d t ha t the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es expr es se d t he wil l o f th e p eo pl e as to wha t was anap pr op ria te sen te nc e in a sp eci fic cas e an d t ha t, g en eral ly, a de fen da nt ’s gu id el in e ran ge was fa ir. Th e co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t, wh il e th e gu id el in e ran ge s fo r ch il d p orno gr ap hy case s co ul d b e ex tre m e, th e ran ge ap pl ic ab le inGil le tt e’s cas e was fai r gi ve n t he nu m be r of im ag es he po ss es se d a nd hi s p as t co nduc t i nv ol vi ng m in or s. Be cau se th e co urt s ta te d t ha t i t h adco ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d t he pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d fo un d t ha t the gu id el in e ran ge was fai r, no ad di ti on al de ta il was n eces sary inth e co urt’s ex pl an at io n o f th e se nt en ce. Se e Rita , 55 1 U.S. at35 6- 57 , 12 7 S .Ct. at24 68 ; Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 86 . 11 Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 11 of 12Gil le tt e’s se nt en ce i s al so subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e rec or d a nd th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Th e 2 40 -m on th sen te nc e was withi n the ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , andwe or di na ril y ex pe ctsu ch a se nt en ce t o b e rea so nabl e. Se e Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 . The s en te nc e, m or eo ve r, m etth e g oa ls en co m pa ss ed withi n § 35 53 (a). Gil le tt e p os se ss edm or e th an40 0 v id eo s an d m or e th an2,0 00 im ag es of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, a seri ou s cr im e. Se e Pugh , 51 5 F .3dat 1 19 5- 98 . In ad di ti on to po ss es si ng su ch a la rg e co ll ect io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy, G il le tt e sh ared hi s co ll ect io n wi th ot he rs , andth e co ll ect io n i nc lu de d young an d i nf an t ch il dr en an d i m ag es de pi ct in g b on da ge with m in or s. Du e to th es e sp eci fic off en se ch arac te ris ti cs , Gil le tt e’s 24 0- m on th sen te nc e was reas on ab le an d wi ll no t p ro du ce un warra nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s. Ad di ti on al ly, th e in st an t o ffen se was n ot Gil le tt e’s fi rs t cr im e in whi chm in or s wer e p utat r is k. Co ns id eri ng Gil le tt e’s rep eat eddi sr eg ardfor

laws pro te ct in g c hi ldren , a se nt en ce wi th in th e g ui de li ne ran ge was n eces sa ry

to pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t, d et er Gil le tt e fro m

furth er cr im in al act iv it y , andpro te ctth e p ub li c. Bas edon th e ab ov e, Gil le tt e’s ul ti m at e se nt en ce was reas on ab le , andwe wil l n otre-wei gh th e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Se e S

ni pe s , 61 1 F .3dat 8 72 . Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af firm Gil le tt e’s se nt en ce. AFFIRMED. 12 Case: 11-15534 Date Filed: 08/01/2012 Page: 12 of 12