F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Dece mber 2 8, 2007 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble Richard W. Story , United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of Ge org ia, * sitti ngby desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 06- 1654 4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 01 2 C R-ORL-3 1- DAB UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us ROBERT MC BRIDE, De fendant-Appellee,

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Middle District of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (D ec em be r 28, 200 7) Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, DUBINA, Cir cu it Ju dg e, an d S TORY, * District Judge.2

PE R CU RIA M: Inthi s c hil d po rn ogr ap hy c as e, the gov er

nm en t a ppe al s R obe rt

Mc Br ide (“ De fendant”)’ s 84-m onth s’ sentence on the ground s that the dist rict court com m itted clear e rror in w eighing the § 3553 (a) factors and im posed an unr ea sona

ble se nte nc e. B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c om m it a cl ear er

ro r in j udgm ent in im

posin g the sentence, w e af firm the sentence.

Ba ck gr ound

D ef en dant p le ad ed

gui lty to one c ount

of dis tr ibu tin g c hil d po rn ogr ap hy , in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. § 225 2A(a )(2)( B), following an investi gation b y United St at es I m m igr at iona nd C ust om s E nf or ce m en t ( “ IC E ”) . D ur ing the inv es tig at ion , 9 8 1 i m ag es o f c h i l dp o rn o g rap h y an d4 5 v i d eo s we re fo u n di n De fe n d an t ’s r e s i d e n c e . D e f

e n d a n ta d mi t t e dth a tth e p o rn o g r ap h y b e l o n g e dt o h i m. Inpr ep ar ing the P re se nte nc e In ve sti ga tio n R ep ort ( “ PS I” ), the pr oba tio n of fic er ca lc ul at eda ba se off en se lev el of 2 2 p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .2(a )(2 ). D ef en dant qua lif

ie d f or e nhanc em en ts: ( 1) atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t be ca use the m at er ia l i nvol ve d apr ep ube sc en t m ino r; ( 2) atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t be ca use the offense involved d istribut ion; (3) a four-level e nhancem ent because the m aterial3

portr ay ed sa dis tic or

m as oc his tic c ondu ct ; ( 4) atw o- le ve l e nhanc em en t be ca use the of fe nse inv olv ed

ac om put er ; ( 5) af

ive -l ev el e nhanc em en t be ca use the of fe nse invo lved m ore than 600 im ages. The probation officer also includeda three -level re duc tio n f

or a cc ep tanc e of

r es pons ibi lity . D ef

en dant’ s f ina l a dj ust ed

of fe nse le ve l w as 34. T ak ing int o a cc ount D ef en dant’ s c le anc ri m ina l r ec or d, the se nte nc ing gui de lin e range w as 151 -1 88 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. T he of fe nse c ar ri ed astatut or y m ax im um se nte nc e of

20 y ears ’ im pr is on m en t an d am in im

um sen te nc e o f 5 years ’ im

pr is on m en t. 1 8 U.S.C. § 2252 (b )( 1) . U nde r 18 U . S. C. § 35 83( k) , the m ax im um te rm of sup er vis ed r el ea se was li fe. The m in im

um ter m of s up erv is edrel eas e was 2 years. U.S.S.G. § 5D 1. 2( b) (2 ). T he pr oba tio n of fi ce r not ed

that the “ T er

m of S upe rv ise d R el ea se (P oli cy S ta te m en t) ” in § 5D 1. 2( b) (2 ) re co m m en de d th e m ax im

um li fe te rm f or supervised release beca

use the offense w as a sex offe nse. De fendant wa s refe rred f or a psy chosexual evaluatio n. T he report detailed that a t a ge 2, D ef

en dant’ s f athe r w as m

ur de re d. A ro und the a ge of 2, D ef en dant inc ur re d se ve re inj ur ie s—i nc lud ing ase ve re d in te sti ne , bur ns, br uis es , a nd a br oke n arm

—a t the hands of

his unc le a nd m oth er . D ef en dant w as the n se nt t o live with his grandfather, who sexually abused him

until Defendant w as rem oved4

from the hom e at age 12. D efendant entere d the foster sy stem until h e w as an ad ult . At ag e 1 6, Def

en da nt pl ead edgu il ty to t wo co un ts of l ewdact s o n a ch il d. O ne inc ide nt i nvol ve d a4- y ear- old gir l; the oth er

a3- y ear- old

gir l. F oll ow ing the inc ide nts , D ef

en dant unde rw en t a

30- day a sse ssm en t and w as pla ce d ina re sid en tia l tre atm en t pr ogr am f or a dol es ce nts . D ur ing his tr eatm en t se ssi ons, D ef en dant f ai le d po ly gr ap h e xa m s and a dm itt ed to the se thi ngs: ( 1) pe rf

orm ing oral sex on a 9-y ear- old bo y at age f ourteen and having the boy perform oral sex on h im ; ( 2) m ole sti ng a

bout 5 gi rl s a t hi s c hur cha nd h is w orkpl ac e at af as t- fo od re sta ur an t; (3 ) exposi ng h im se lf to a 5- y ear- old

boy a t a ge e igh te en ; ( 4) w at ch ing a 3- y ear- old

gir l pl ay nake d and l at er

m as tur ba tin g to the m em or

y ; ( 5) w at ch ing a te n- y ear- old

gir l pl ay nake d and l at er

m as tur ba tin g to the m em or

y ; and ( 6) pla ci ng hi m se lf i n a reas wher e y ou ng ch il dr en co ng reg at ed , in vi ol at io n o f a co ur t o rd er. D ef en dant r em ai ne d insom e fo rm of state c ust ody

unt il the a ge of

20. I n 20 03, D ef en dant w as a rr es te d and f ound to be takin g pi ct

ur es of 3- to- 5- y ear- old

gir ls. D ur ing the pr e- se nte nc ing int er vie ww iththe psy ch olo gis ts, D ef en dant adm itt ed to be ing se xua lly

a ttr ac te d to c hil dr en55% of the ti m e. H e str ongl y agreed w ith the statem ents, “ Som e m en sexually assaulted children because they re al ly tho ught the c hil dr enw oul d e nj oy howit f el t, ” an d, “ Many

m ense xua lly5

assaulted children because of stress and m olesting helped to relieve that stress.” H e e x p r e s s e dad e s i r e t o b e tr e a t e di n ar e s i d e n t i a l tr e a t me n tp r o g r a m. De fendant wa s diagno sed as a pedophile. T he psy cholog ists’ r eport co nc lud ed

that D ef en dant s houl d be se nte nc ed to ane xte nde d pe ri od o f pr oba tio n so tha t he c oul d be sup er

vis ed a nd r ec ei ve f

oll ow -u p tr eatm en t. D ef

en dant h ad

no obj ec tio ns t o th e co nte nts of the le tte rs f

ro m the m en ta l he al th p ro fe ssi ona l w ho de ta ile d hi s pa st h ist or

y a nd d ia gnos ed

his c ondi tio n. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the f ac tua l f ind ing s a s c ont ai ne d in

the P SI a nd agreed that 151 to 18 8 m onth s’ im prisonm ent was the a

ppropriate guid elines range . T he c ourt a lso li ste ne d to state m en ts b y de fe nse c ouns el r ec ount ing De fendant’ s personal hist ory —nam ely , that his father

wa s m urdered, his m other and uncle phy sically

abused him , his grandfather sexually abused him , and he was tr an sf er re d aro und to m an y

f ost er hom es . D ef

en dant c la im ed

he suf fe rs f ro m se ve ra l he al th p ro ble m s, suc h a s anxi ety , de pr es sio n, pos t- tr aum at ic str es s disorder, and conduct diso rder. De fendant adm itted that he had no t alway s been co m ple te ly tr uth fu l, but

c ont en de d th at

his de nia ls w er e psy ch olo gic al a nd w oul d be de al t w ithin tr eatm en t. D ef en dant s ai d he w an te d to r ec ei ve tr eatm en t and p oin te d ou t on e tw oy ear program , operated by the Bureau of Prisons, that wa s supp osedlyvery6

effe ctive. The program

only has 120 bed s, and severa l thou sand peop le had asked to e nte r the pr ogr am . D ef en dant r eque ste d ase nte nc e be lowthe gui de lin e range an d r ec om

m en de d ase nte nc e of

5 t o 7 y ears so tha t he w oul d have ti m e to w ai t f or a n dc o mp l e t e th e tr e a t me n tp r o g r a m. T he gov er

nm en t po int ed

out that D ef en dant h ad

c om m itt ed ave ry se ri ous of fe nse a nd tha t c hil dr ena nd the pub lic ne ed ed pr ote ct ion . T he gov er

nm en t a lso poin ted out th at past treatm ent program s had failed and that protection of child ren wa s a “ very , ver

y strong factor.” T he governm ent also notedthat, since D ef en dant’ s late st r el ea se f

ro m r es ide nti al tr eatm en t, D ef en dant h ad

r ubbe d up ag ai nst se ve ra l y oung c hil dr ena t an am use m en t park

a nd l ie d to the psy ch olo gis t ab out it . Th e c o u rts e n t e n c e dDe f

e n d a n tt o 8 4 mo n t h s ’ i mp r i s o n men tf o l l o w e db y a te n- y ear pe ri od o f supe rv ise d r el ea se . T he c ourt st at ed that i t ha d c onsi de re d th e advisory guidelin es and the 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a) f actors and that the sentence w oul d a llo wsuf

fi ci en t t im e fo r D ef

en dant t o c om

ple te the se xua l tre atm en t pr ogr am . T he gov er

nm en t ob j ec te d; D ef

en dant d id n ot. O n a

ppe al , the go ve rn m en t ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco ur t i m po se d a n u nr eas on ab le sen te nc e.Th e se fa c tor s are to b e c on sid e re d: ( 1) the ne e d to re fl e c t th e ser io us nes s of th e of fe ns e , to 1 promote re spect for

the law, an d t o p ro v i de just punishment for the off ense; (2) the nee d for deter renc e; (3) the need to protec t the public; ( 4) the need to pr ovide the most effe ctive cor rec tional treatment or medica l car e; (5) the nature an d ci rc u m s t ance s of the off ense; (6) the history

and char act eri sti c s o f t

he de fe nd ant; (7 ) t

he Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s r ang e ; and (8 ) t he ne e d to avo id unwanted se ntencingdisparities. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 7 D isc uss ion

U nde r Bo oke r, thi s C ourt m ust r ev ie wse nte nc es f

or r ea sona ble ne ss i n th e light of the fac tors listed in 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a). 125 S. Ct. 738, 765-66 (20 05). 1 T he se nte nc e m

ust be suf fi ci en t bu t no t gr eate r than ne ce ssary to ac hie ve the purpos es of 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a)( 2). “ [T ] he party who challenges the sentence be ar s th e bur de n of

e sta bli shi ng tha t the se nte nc e is unr ea sona ble in the li ght

of both [ the ] r ec or d and the f ac tor s inse ct ion355 3( a) . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. T al le y , 431 F. 3d 7 84, 788 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . “ Re vie wf or r ea sona ble ne ss i s de fe re nti al . ” Id . T his Co urt ha s e sta

bli she d atw o- part

pr oc es s f or dis tr ic t c ourts t o de te rm ine anappr opr ia te se nte nc e fo llo w ing Bo oke r. T he c ourt m ust c onsu lt an d c or

re ct ly determ ine the sentencing range prescribed by the Sentencing Guidelines. Id. at 786. The c ourt m

ust then im

pose a reasonable sentence in the light of the factors enum erate d in 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a). Id. W e have re gularly said that a district court ne ed not a cc ount f or e ve ry § 35 53( a) f

ac tor , nor m ust it dis cu ss e ac h f

ac tor a nd theIn United S tates v. Hunt, 459 F.3d 1180, 1182 n.3 (11th Cir. 2006), we stated “a sentenc e may 2 be substantively

unrea sonable, reg ardle ss of t he procedure used.” In Hunt, howeve r, t he def endant did not challeng e the se ntence on substantive g rounds, but claimed only that the sentenc ing proce dure use d by

the district court wa s unrea sonable. I d. 8 ro le that i t pl ay ed

in se nte nc ing . S ee , e . g. , id. a t 78 6; Unit ed S ta te s v. Ro ble s, 408 F. 3d 13 24, 1328 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). H er e, the gov er

nm en t do es not

a lle ge that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed a pr oc ed ur al e rr or . T he gov er

nm en t c onc ed es that “ the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly calculated [D efendant’ s] sentencing gu idelines range.” I t also acknowledges that the district court consid ered a num ber of the § 3553(a) fa ctors. The district court al so s pe ci fi ca lly

f ound that the 84- m onths s en te nc e “ w oul d be suf fi ci en t bu t no t greater than necessary

to accom plish [the] purposes [of sentencing ] .” Th e g o v ern m en t ’s ch al l en g e r es t s o n th e c o n t en t i o n th at th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s or de r w as sub stanti ve ly

unr ea sona

ble . A lth oughw e ac ce pt tha t a se nte nc e m ay

be unr ea sona

ble e ve n w he re the dis tr ic t c ourt f oll ow ed the pr ope r se nte nc ing pr oc ed ur e, a n a ppe llate c ourt sh oul d no t si m ply sub sti tut e its j udgm en t f or that of 2 the sentencing cou rt. United State s v. Melvin, 187 F. 3d 13 16, 1323 (11t h Cir. 1999 ) (“ [I] t is not th e role of an appellate court to subs titute its judgm ent for that of the se nte nc ing c ourt a s to the appr opr ia te ne ss o f a part ic ular se nte nc e. ” (quot ing W il li am s v . Uni te d S ta te s, 1 12 S. Ct. 1 11 2, 1 12 1 (1 99 2) (al te rat io n i n o rig in al )).9

T he gov er

nm en t arg ue s th at , a lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt di sc uss ed m an y of the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s, it f ai le d to giv e pr ope r w ei ght to som e w hil e ove re m pha siz ing oth er s. E ve n if w e w er e to d isa gr ee w iththe w ei ght that the district court gave to Defe ndant’s history of abuse, w e w ill onlyrever se a pr oc ed ur al ly pr ope r se nte nc e if

w e ar e “ le ft

w iththe de fi nit e an d f

irm c onvi ct ion that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed ac le ar e rr or of j udgm en t i n w ei ghi ng the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s by a rr ivi ng at a

se nte nc e that l ie s ou tsi de the r an ge of r ea sona ble se nte nc es dic ta te d by

the f ac ts o f the c as e. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. W ill iam s, 456 F . 3d 13 53 , 13 63 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Wha te ve r se nte nc e w e m igh t have im pose d, w e do n ot b el ie ve a n 84 - m onth s’ sentence lies outsid e the range of reasonable in this case. The sentence ex ce ed s th e statut or

y m ini m um by som e y ears . T he dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ic itl y dis cu sse d anum

be r of the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s, inc lud ing the goa l of pr ote ct ing the publ ic. In announcin g Def endant’ s sentence, the c ourt stated that the sentence pr ovi de s f

or “ a sig nif ic an t t er m of inc ar ce ratio n to a cc ount

f or his m isc ondu ct

a nd the seriousness of the offe nse and, fr ankly , to keep him off the stree ts for that period of tim e so that he will not be in a positi on to repeat this cond uct in society .” About Def

endant’ s own history , the district court also said that the De fendant “ has pe rh ap s on e of

the w or st h ist or ie s th at

I have se ensin ce be ing on the be nc h, be ingWe do not say that Gra y controls this case. 3 10 es se nti al ly

abandon ed

by his f am ily a nd the n c onsi ste ntl y

abuse d. ” W e cannot co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed c le ar e rr or in j udgm en t i n de te rm ini ng that a sentence considerably less than the Sentencing Guidelines’ r ecom m ended ran ge was app ro pr ia te . Unlike the sentences in Crisp and Martin, the sentence in this case invol ves signi ficant tim e in prison and a 10-y ear period of supervised release. See United St at es v. Cr isp , 454 F . 3d 1 285 (1 1thCi r. 200 6) ( va catin g ase nte nc e of 5 y ears ’ pr oba tio n and 1 2 m onths’ hom e co nf ine m en t w he re the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s’ range w as 24- 30 m onths’ inc ar ce ratio n) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. Mart in, 455 F . 3d 1 227 (1 1thCi r. 200 6) ( va catin g a7- day se nte nc e w he re the gui de lin es ’ r an ge w as 108 - 135 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t) . B y

the w ay , the 84- m onths’ se nte nc e in this c as e is a ye a r l o n g e r th a n th e 7 2 - mo n t h s ’ s e n t e n c e we a f f i rmedi n Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Gr a y, w he re the D ef

en dant w as a lso c harg ed

w ithdis tr ibu tio n of

c hil d po rn ogr ap hy

a nd w as sub j ec t t o th e sa m e Se nte nc ing G uid el ine s’ r an ge . 453 F . 3d 1 323, 132 5 ( 11th Cir. 2006 ) (“ Although Gr ay 's sentence is less than half the 151 m onth s that defines the botto m

of the guidelines range, under the circ um stances and given th e district court's explanation we cannot say that is unreasonable in li ght of the § 35 53(a) factors. ”). 3 AFFIR MED.11

D U BIN A , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , dis se nti ng: Though I agree w ith the m aj ority that the district court followed the proper pr oc edur es in cal cu la ti ng th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e an d c on si de rin g t he 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a) factors, I disagree with the m aj ority ’ s conclusio n that the sentence im pose d is sub stanti ve ly

r ea sona ble , a nd thus, I r es pe ct fu lly dis se nt. In Gall v. United States , 552 U . S. ___ ( 2007 ), the S upr em e Co urt m ad e it cl ear that a

ppe llate c ourts m

ust und er take atw o- part

pr oc es s inr ev ie w ing the se nte nc e im

pose d by the dis tr ic t c ourt. F ir st, the appe llate c ourt m ust de te rm ine whe th er o r no t t he pro pe r pr oc edur es were fo ll owe d b y th e d is tri ctco ur t. Id

. at

___ (s lip op. a t 7) . S ec ond, “ the appe llate c ourt sh oul d th enc onsi de r the subs tanti ve r ea sona

ble ne ss o f the se nte nc e im pose d un de r anabuse -o f- dis cr et ion standard.” Id

. “ Inr ev ie w ing the r ea sona ble ne ss o f a se nte nc e out sid e the G uid el ine s r an ge , appe llate c ourts m ay . . . take the de gr ee of

vari an ce int o account and consid er the e xtent of a deviation from the Guidelines.” Id. at

___ (s li p o p. at 6). Inthi s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt c hose to de part f ro m the G uid el ine s r an ge of 151- 188 m onths i m

pr iso nm en t and i nst ea d se nte nc ed the de fe ndant t o 84 m onths im prisonm ent. F urtherm ore, in spite of the fact that the G uidelin es rec omm ended a lifetim e term

of supervised release, the district court chose to im pose a 10-y ear te rm of sup er vis ed r el ea se . I be lie ve that bo th the te rm of inc ar ce ratio n and the12

te rm of sup er vis ed r el ea se a re sub stanti ve ly unr ea sona

ble giv enthe f

ac ts o f thi s case. First, 84 m onth s of im prisonm ent is unreasonable because the district court unj ust ly f ixate d onthe de fe ndant’ s ho rr if ic c hil dhoo d. I n U

nit ed Sta tes v . Cr isp , 454 F. 3d 1 285, 129 2 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) , thi s c ourt st at ed that “ co urts h av e fo und that a dis tr ic t c ourt’ s un

j ust if ie d r el ianc e upona ny

one 355 3( a) f

ac tor is a sym pt om of a n u nr eas on ab le sen te nc e.” (i nt ern al qu ot at io ns an d c it at io ns om it te d) . T he c ourt w en t onto state that “ [t ] he dis tr ic t c ourt f oc use d si ngl e- m ind ed ly

on the go al of r es ti tu ti on to th e d et riment o f al l t he ot he r se nt en ci ng fact or s. An unreasonable approach produced an un reasonable sentence. ” Id . T his is ex ac tly what happened in this case. T houg h the district court gave lip-service to other § 3553 (a ) fa ct or s, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s do w nw ar d de part ur e w as ba se d larg el y , if

not solely , on the defe ndant’s childhood , which it deem ed to be one of the worst it had ev ers ee n . S o m e r ed u ct i o n m i g h th av e b ee n ap p ro p ri at e b as ed o n th e d ef en d an t ’s ch ildhood , but

adownw ar d de part

ur e of a lm ost 50% f ro m the bottom

of the Guidelines range w as unreasonable when the other § 3553(a) fac tors, such as re fl ec tin g th e se ri ousn es s of the of fe nse , the ne ed

f or de te rr en ce , a nd the ne ed to pr ote ct the pub lic , a ll supp ort a

m or e le ngthy

te rm of inc ar ce ratio n th anthe oneTh e ma jor ity dis tin guis he s Un ite d S

tates v . Cr isp , 454 F.3d 1285 ( 11th Cir. 2006), and United 1 Sta te s v . M ar tin , 455 F.3d 1227 ( 11th Cir. 2006), in which we f ound sentenc es unre asonable , as support for the c oncl u s i o n t h at this sentence was re asonable . Howeve r, assuming , arguendo, that the sentenc es in Crisp and Martin wer e more unrea sonable than the sentenc e in t h i s case , the fa ct that th e se nte nc e in t

his c a se is l e ss u

nr e a so na ble do e s n ot m e an it

is re a so na

ble . I am si mil arl y unpersua ded by

the majority ’s re liance on United States v. Gray , 453 F.3d 1323 ( 11th C i r. 2006), which I do not find to be controlling, nor for that matter ve ry persua sive. Thoug h Grayde a lt w ith a similar depa

rture in a child pornog rap hy

c a s e , Gray is clear ly

distinguishable be cause the def endant in Gray, unlike the def

endant in this case , had neve r ac ted out ag ainst children. 13 giv en . T hus, a s in Cr isp , “ [a ] n un re as ona ble appr oa chpr oduc ed

a n un re as ona

ble se nt en ce.” Id

. 1 Se co nd, a lth oughI be lie ve that the te rm of inc ar ce ratio n w as unr ea sona bly lowin thi s c as e, I be lie ve abig ge r pr obl em w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s se nte nc e is the 10-y ear term

of supervised release. T itle 18 U. S. C. § 355 3(a) states that the “ court sha ll im pose ase nte nc e suf

fi ci en t . . . to co m

ply w iththe pur

pose s se t f

orth i n paragraph (2), ” w hich includ es the need “ to protect the pub lic from further c rim es of the de fe ndant. ” T he se nte nc e im pose d inthi s c as e doe s no t satis fy thi s re qui re m en t and i s thus unr ea sona ble . G ive n th at

the de fe ndant i s ape doph ile w ho ha s a dm itt ed

to se xua lly

abusi ng s ev enc hil dr enove r the la st 1 3 y ears , f ai le d to be rehabilitated through treatm ent, violated a court order to stay aw ay from are as w he re y oung c hil dr ena re c ongr eg at ed , a nd a dm itt ed to be ing se xua lly

a ttr ac te d to ch ildre n 55 % of

the ti m e, the onl y

w ay to sa tis fy the § 35 53( a) r equir em en t of protecting the pu blic is to im pose a sentence that includes lifetim e supervised re le as e. T his ne ed

f or li fe tim e supe rv ise d r el ea se is al so s uppo rt ed by the14

Guidelines, w hich includ e a policy statem ent recom

m ending lifetim e supervised re le as e be ca

use the of fe nse is a se x of

fe nse . U . S. S. G § 5D 1. 2( b) (2 ). A s it stands, the de fe ndant w ill w al k f re e in s oc ie ty

w ith out r es tr ic tio ns at a ge 45. A llo w ing som eo ne w ho w ill unque sti ona bly c ont inu e to r em ai n adange r to s oc ie ty ’ s m ost vuln erable c itizens - its children - to live free of any restrictions at any

age, let al one a t su chay oung a ge , in m y vie w , is subs tanti ve ly

unr ea sona

ble . T he onl y reasonable sentence for

this defendant m

ust inclu de a ter

m of lifetim e supervised relea se. Fo r the a fo re m en tio ne d r ea sons , I be lie ve that the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s se nte nc e in th is cas e is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le an d s ho ul d t hu s b e v acat ed . Accor di ng ly, I re spe ct fu lly

dis se nt.