NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0067n.06 Nos. 07-6265, 07-6266 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA , Plaintif f-Appellee , v. DA VI D T OBE K

EITH , Defendant-

Appellant
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

BEFORE: KENN EDY, COLE, an d GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges . COLE, Circuit Jud ge. Def endant- Appellant David Tobe Keith appea ls his sentence of 188 months incarce ration im posed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Tenne ssee. Ke ith pled g uilty to travelingwith intent to enga g e in illicit sex ual contac t with a minor, knowing ly using a means of interstate c ommerce to entice or coer ce a minor to eng ag e in a se x ual act, shipping child pornog raphy , and possessing child pornog raphy . Keith contends that his sentence is procedur ally

unrea sonable beca

use the district court fa iled to consider suff iciently his argument that th e Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s f or c hil d po rn og ra

ph y are no t ba se d on e mpi ri c a l re se arc h and , a s a result, should be discounted. For the following rea sons, we AF F IRM the district court’s se ntencing deter mination.07

-6 26 5/6 26 6, US A v . Ke ith

- 2 -

I. BACKG ROUND A. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound 1. Indictme nt No. 06-20287: Traveling to engage in sex with a minor Fr om A pril to July 2006, Keith, a thirty -four -y ear -old resident of Musk o gee , Oklahoma, communicated ove r the Interne t with an FB I Special Age nt posing a s a thirteen- y ear -old g irl from Memphis, Tennesse e. Throug h emails and computer “chats,” Keith discussed a desire to mee t the purp or te d thi rt e e n- y e ar- old in pe rs on fo r s e x; he a lso se nt h e r d ig ita l im a g e s and a dig ita l mo vie fi le of se xua lly e xplic it c on te nt i nv olv ingc hil dr e n— ima g e s de pic tin g se xua l a c ts h e wa nte d to tr y wi th her. In mid-J uly , Keith ar rang ed to trave l to Me mphis for a re ndezvous with the purported thirtee ny ear -old. Once there , howeve r, he w as ar rested by the FB I . A sea

rch of Keith’s vehic le re veale d two six- pa c ks of

a lc oh ol, a

bo x of c on do ms, and

tw o p ornogra

ph ic ma g a zine s— on e e nti tle d “ ba re ly leg al.” 2. Information No. 07-20089: Possession of child pornography I n addition, the National Center for Missing and Ex ploited Children r ece ived a tip on J anuar y 4, 2006, that Keith had uploade d sexually expli cit photogr aphs of a minor fe m al e disrobed a nd urinating
. The Oklahoma State Bur eau of I nvestig ation (OSBI ) then a ssisted with an investigation into Keith’s distribution and possession of child pornog raphy
. On Ap ri l 20, 2006, OSBI Special Ag ents conduc ted an unc ontested sea rch of Keith’s computer , reve aling pornog raphic photogr aphs of juvenile g irls. Keith’s computer

was then se ized an d a compl ete f orensic e x amination conducte d. The examination revea led 175 photo files of sexually expli cit imag es of c hildren, including prepube scent07

-6 26 5/6 26 6, US A v . Ke ith

- 3 - children; twe lve video files of children eng ag ed in e x plicit se x ual conduct; and four video f iles of y oung people e ng ag ing in se x ually expli cit conduct. Since eac h photo file is considere d to be one imag e and eac h video file is c onsidered to ha ve seventy -five imag es, Ke ith’s computer wa s found to contain a total of 1,075 imag es. See U.S. SentencingGuidelines Manua l (U.S.S.G. or the “Guidelines” ) § 2G2.2 a

pplication note no. 4(B )(i) a nd (ii) (2006). B. P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound A f e de ra l g ra nd jur y re tur ne d a fi ve -c ount ind ic tme nt a g a ins t Ke ith on July 25 , 2 00 6, in C a se No. 06-2 0 2 8 7
. Co u n t o n e c h ar g e d K e it h w it h tr a v e li n g to e n g a g e in il li c it s e xu a l c o n ta c t w ith a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b). Count two cha rg ed him with knowingly using a means of int e rs tate c omm e rc e to e nti c e or c oe rc e a min or to e ng a g e in a se xua l a c t in

vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 2422(b). Count s three though five charg ed him with elec tronically transmitting child pornog raphy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1). On Fe bruar

y 9, 2007, a two-c ount bill of i nformation wa s filed ag ainst Keith in Case No. 07- 20089. Count one char g ed Ke ith with possession of child pornogr aphy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a) (4). Count two contained a notice of cr iminal forfe iture re lated to the computer and other equipment seized pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1467(a)( 3) and 2253. Keith pled guilty

to all five counts of t he indictment and both counts of the information on May 29, 2007, without a plea a g ree ment. A Pr e s e nte n c e I nvestig ation Report (PSR) was subsequently prepa red, usingthe 2006 edition of the Gu ide lin e s. Th e PSR re c omm e nd e d g ro up ing Ke ith ’s c ha rg e s for tr a ve lin g to e ng a g e in i lli c it sexual conduct with a minor and usinga mea ns of interstate commerc e to e ntice or coer ce a minor07

-6 26 5/6 26 6, US A v . Ke ith

- 4 - to engage i n a se xua l a c t ( Gr ou p 1 ); and

Ke ith ’s c ha

rg e s f or kn ow ing ly

tr ans mittin g c hil d pornog raphy

and knowing ly

possessing c hild pornog raphy (Group 2)
. Keith’s base offe nse leve l for Group 1 was calc ulated at twe nty -four
. See U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3. The PSR recommende d a sentencing enhanc ement for using a computer to persuade , induce, e ntice,
or coe rce a mi nor t o eng ag e in prohibited sexual conduct. See id. § 2 G1 .3 (b )( 3) . T he re su lt w a s a
rec ommended adjusted of fense level of twe nty -six
. Keith’s base offe nse leve l f or Group 2 was calc ulated at twenty -two. See id. § 2G2.2(a )(2)
. Th e PSR r e c omm e nd e d a

numbe r o f s e nte nc inge nh anc e me nts : f or ima g e s o f p re pu

be sc e nt m ino rs , see id. § 2G2.2(b)( 2); for distribution of child pornog raphic materia l to a minor that was intended to persuade, i n d u ce , en t ice, or coer ce the minor to eng ag e in prohibited sexual conduct, see id. § 2G2.2(b)( 3)(E) ; for using a computer to transmit and distribute the sexually expli cit materia l, see id. § 2 G 2
. 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) ; a

n d f o r p o s s e s s in g mo r e th an6 0 0 im a g e s o f c h il d p o rnog raphy , see id. § 2G2.2(b)( 7)(D) . The re sulting total offe nse leve l for Gr oup 2 was thirty -eig ht. The PSR further recommende d a combined a djusted offe nse leve l for Gr oups 1 and 2 of thirty -eig ht. See id. § 3D1.4. Fina lly , the PSRrec ommended a three- level downwa rd adjustment for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty , see id. § 3E1.1(a) and (b) , resulting in a final tot al offe nse leve l of thirty -five. Since Keith pre viously

had pled g uilty to know ingly possessing child pornog raphy , he wa s place d in Criminal Hist ory Categ ory I I . Tog ether , the total o ffe nse leve l and Criminal History Categ ory yielded an a dvisory

Guidelines ra

ng e o f 188 to 235 months i mprisonment. Be cause the minimum o f t he Guidelines r ang e excee ded the statutory maxi mum for count one of the07

-6 26 5/6 26 6, US A v . Ke ith

The sentencing transcr ipt err oneously ref ers to the s entenc e as 138 months. (Sentencing 1 Tr. 35, 40.) U .S.S.G. § 5A shows that the a pplicable Guide lines rang e is 188 to 235 months and the d i s t ri ct co urt’s judg ment corr ectly ref lects that the sente nce imposed w as 188 months. (J udg ment in Criminal C ase, Case # 2:06-cr- 20287, Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 38 at 3.) - 5 - information—possession of child pornog raphy —the PSR rec ommended a sente nce of the statutory maxi mum of 120 months for that count. The district cour

t held a sente ncinghear ing on O ctober 15, 2007, during which it discussed the re levant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fac tors. The c ourt discussed the nature a nd circ umstances of Keith’s off

enses, c oncluding that t h e o ff enses were “ver

y serious and a

very threatening ty

pe of
a c ti v it y to w ar d s w h a t c o u ld

h av e v e r y w e ll b e e na

mi n o r . ” ( Se n te n c in g T r . 3 7
. ) T h e c o u rt n e xt considere d the history and char acte ristics of the defe ndant, noting that while Keith has co ncer ned family members, he “has been downloading this ty pe of materia l f

or quite a numbe r of y ear s.” ( Id. ) The c ourt furthe r consider ed the ne ed for t h e s en t en ce imposed to reflec t the seriousness of the of fe ns e , to a ff

or d a de qu a te de te rr e nc e , an d to pr ote c t th e pu bli c fr om f

ur the r c ri me s o f t

he de fe nd ant, noting that Ke ith had previously committed simi lar off

enses. Finally , the court considere d Keith’s need f or medica l car e, specifically his need for therapy
. The court then imposed a sente nce of 188
mon ths fo r e a c h o f t

he fi ve c ounts in 0 6- 20 28 7 to ru n c on c ur re ntl y ; and 12 0 months fo r the c ounts 1 in 07-20089, to run conc urre nt w ith the sentenc e in 06- 20287. The court further imposed a ten-year pe ri od of su pe rv ise d r e le a se fo r e a c h c ount. Keith timely

appea led his sentence
.07

-6 26 5/6 26 6, US A v . Ke ith

I t is questionable whether Keith prope rl y o bjected at the sentenc ing he aringto what he 2 considere d to be the dis trict court’s insufficient t reatment of his argument that the child-pornog raphy Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s are no t ba se d o n e mpi ri c a l r e se arc h a nd that, t he re fo re , w e sh ou ld r e vie w h is sentenc e for

plain err or only
. United States v. Vonne r , 5 1 6 F
. 3 d 3 8 2 , 3 8 5
- 8 6 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. We decline to do so, howe ver, beca use the g overnme nt did not r equest that we apply this more stringe nt standard of

revie w. Se e Un ite d S

tates v . B lac k

ie , 548 F.3d 395, 404 (Sutton, J., concurring ) (“ The go v ern m en t n ev er as k ed u s t o ap p l y p l ai n -e rr o r re v i ew t o t h i s cl ai m , wh i ch b y i t s el f i s re as o nen o u gh not to apply

this standard to the issue.”)
. - 6 - II. AN AL YSI S We r e vie w a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s se nte nc e fo r r e a so na ble ne ss. United States v. Moon , 513 F.3d

2 5 2 7 , 5 3 8 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Gall v

. Unit ed States , 5 52 U. S. 3 8, 45 -4 7 ( 20 07 ); Rita v. United States , 5 51 U. S. 3 38 , 3 41 (2 00 7) ; United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005)). I n doing so,
we de te rm ine if

a dis tr ic t c ourt’s sen te nc e ha s a c hie ve d th e g oa l of imp os inga

“ se nte nc e that is sufficie nt, but no gr eate r than ne cessa ry to c omport with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a ).” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). Reasonable ness has bot h proce dural a nd substantive components. United States v. Liou , 4 91 F .3 d 3 34 , 3 37 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7)
. “Th erefo re, w e mus t ‘consider not only the leng th of the sentenc e but also the fa ctors eva luated and the proce dures employ ed by

the district court in re achingits s en t en ci n g deter mination.’” Moon , 513 F.3d at 539 (q u o t i n g United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 383 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). Keith arg ues t hat hi s sentenc e is proce durally unrea sonable be cause the district court fa iled to addre ss his arg ument that the child-pornography SentencingGuidelines ar e not base d o n e mp irical
rese arc h. Acc ording to Keith, the district c ourt should ha ve “af forde d littl e we ight” to the Guideline for of fense s involving sexual expl oitation of a minor, U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2. (Ke ith Br. 14.)07

-6 26 5/6 26 6, US A v . Ke ith

- 7 - I n order for a

sentenc e to be pr ocedur ally rea sonable, “ [w] hen a de fenda nt raises a particula r [nonfrivolous] argument in seekinga lower sentenc e, the r ecor d mu s t re fl ect both that the district judge considere d the def

endant’ s argument and that the judg e explained the basis for reje cting it.” United States v. L a londe , 5 09 F .3 d 7 50 , 7 70 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) (q uo tatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) . Y e t, “[d] istrict courts may exercise discretion in deter mining how much of

an explanation of the sente nce is require d beca

use the amount of rea soning r equire d varie s acc ording to co n t ex t
. T h i s court has made it clea

r that a district c ourt need not e x plain its re asons for r ejec ting e ach a rgument made by a def endant.” United States v. Polihonki , 543 F.3d 318, 325 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks a nd internal c itation omit ted). Keith’s par

ticular a rgument is a nonfrivolous one, c onfirmed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Kimbrough v

. United States , 552 U. S. 85 (2 00 7)
. I n that ca se , w hic h w a s d e c ide d s ho rt ly afte r Ke ith’s sentencinghear ing, the Court held t h at “i t wo u l d not be an a buse of discr etion for a district court to conc lude when se ntencinga par ticular de fenda

nt that the cra ck / p o wder [cocaine] disparity yields a sen t en ce ‘gr eate r than ne cessa ry ’ to ac hieve § 3553( a)’ s purposes, eve n in a mine-run c ase.” Id. at 110. As the Seve nth Circuit ex plained in a para llel case , the re asoning of Ke ith ’s su

bs tanti ve argume nt p ro c e e ds a s f oll ow s: [ Kimbrough ] allows dis trict courts to disag ree on policy g rounds with sentenc ing g uidelines that exhibi t methodologica l flaws; the same methodologic al flaw s that char acte rize the cra ck guidelines—lack of empirica l support—also undermine the child-pornog raphy

g uidelines; theref

ore, district c ourts may

sentenc e childpornog raphy

offe nders be low the g uidelines rang e base d on disag ree ment with the po lic y e mbo die d in

the g uid e lin e s. United States v. Huffstatler , 571 F.3d 620, 623 ( 7th Cir. 2009) (citing Troy Stabenow, De c on str uc tin g th e My th o f Ca re ful Stu dy : A Pr im e r o n th e Flawe d Pro gr essi on of t heChi ld07

-6 26 5/6 26 6, US A v . Ke ith

- 8 - Pornography Guidelines 27-32 (July 3, 2008), http:// mow.fd.org/3%20J uly %202008%20Edit.pdf)
. So me d is tr ic t c o u rts h av e a c c e p te d th is ar g u me n t. E

. g. , United States v. Grobe r , 5 95 F. Supp. 2d 382, 394 (D.N.J. 2008) (“§ 2G 2.2 leads to a se ntence that is too severe in a downloading
c a se ” ); Un ite d S

tates v . B air

d , 580 F. Supp. 2d 889, 895 (D. Ne b. 2008) (“ Be cause the Guidelines [for child expl oitat i o n crimes] do not refle ct the Commissi on’s unique instituti onal streng ths, the
c ourt a ff or ds the m le ss de fe re nc e tha n it wo uld to e mpi ri c a lly -gro un de d guid e lin e s. ” ); United States v. Shipley , 560 F. Supp. 2d 739, 744 (S.D. I owa 2008) (same)
. B e fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt , K e ithart ic ulate d h is s ub sta nti ve argume nt a s f

oll ow s: Yo ur Ho no r, the g uid e lin e s, Yo ur Ho no r, have be e n und e r c on tin uo us a ssa ult Ithink even as e arly

as late la st week or

the wee k b ef

o re last when Ga ll and Ki mbr ou g h w e re arguin g a t th e U. S. Su pr e me Court
. Ithink there’s s o m e s er i ous conce rn about district cour ts list eningto the De pa rtme nt of Justi c e ’s mantr a

of the g uid e lin e s. I n ma

ny c a se s in the g uid e lin e s, the re ha sn ’t

be e n a lot of tho ug ht t hat ha s g on e int o th e m. And that’s why

they are under assault as g rave ly as they are . The sente ncing commission themselves are having problems with thin gs l ike the cr ack c ocaine disparity , powder

disparity , and thing s like that. . . . What Iam saying is the re is this adher ence to the g uidelines like they are the Holy Gra il of sentenc ing, and they are not. They are not at a ll. They are n o t even close. . . . An d w e are a sk ingthe Court to i mpo se a

se nte nc e le ss t

ha n th e g uid e lin e s. (Sentenc ing T r. 25-27.) The district cour t specifica lly

responde d: “ So you are rig ht. Courts are not
nece ssarily

becoming , Ig uess, rubbe r stamps for the g uidelines.” ( Id. at 27.) W e f i n d t h i s t r e a t m e n t o f

K e i t h ’ s ar g u m e n t

—t h o u g hp e r

h a p s n o ti d e a l

—t o b e s u f

f i c i e n t
. It
re ve a ls that th e dis tr ic t c ourt un de rs too d a

nd c on sid e re d K e ith ’s po int and is s uffici ent ly distinguishable f

rom situations in which we have rema nded a case for r e-se ntencing
. See U nited07

-6 26 5/6 26 6, US A v . Ke ith

- 9 - States v. Robertson , 3 09 F . App ’x 91 8, 923-2 4 (6 th C ir . 2 00 9) (f ind ingse nte nc e pr oc e dura lly
unrea sonable whe re district c ourt “ne ver r esponded” to one of defe ndant’s ar g uments, conducte d an exchang e sugg esting a mi sunderstanding of the a rgument, and spec ifically

addre ssed re maining two
argume nts ); United States v. Thomas , 498 F.3d 336, 341 (6th Cir. 2007) (va catingsentenc e whe re “[defenda nt’s] arg uments went unmentioned a nd unaddre ssed, save t h e gen era l statement by the district court that it had re ceive d, rea d, and under stood the sentencingmemorandum” ). III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons discussed a

bove, we AF F IRM the district court’s se ntence
.