[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 16 10 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 1- cr-1 40 35 -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 Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CANDIDO DEJESUS OSORIO, 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM: Can di do Oso rio ap pe al s t he pro cedur al an d s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of hi s 2 35 -m on th sen te nc e fo r pr oduc ti on of c hi ldpo rn og rap hy. On ap pe al , Oso rio

Case: 11-16107 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 1 of 9arg 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:

(1 ) co ns id eredon ly one 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or —h is gu id el in e ran ge ; an d (2 ) di d n otco ns id er the factth at , inFlo rid a, Oso rio wou ldhave be ensubjec t t o a m ax im um sen te nc e o f fi ve y ears ’ im pr is on m en t fo r hi s cr im e. He arg ue s t ha t h is se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le be cau se a 18 0- m on th sen te nc e wou ldha ve be ensu ffi ci en t g iv enth e n atur e o f th e o ffen se . For t he reas on s s etforth be lo w, we affi rm Oso rio ’s sen te nc e. I. InJu ne 20 11 , Oso rio ’s wife d is co ve reda di gi ta l ca m era h id de n i n t he ba th ro om sh e sh aredwith Os or io an d h er 1 4- y ear- ol d d au gh te r (Os or io ’s st ep daug ht er). Aft er v ie win g t he vi de o re co rd in gs an d s eei ng vi de o o f he r daug ht er co m

pl et el y na ke d, Os or io ’s wife c on ta ct edth e p ol ic e. The p ol ic e di sc ov eredfou r vi de o re co rd in gs , andin each , Oso rio was s een set ti ng up th e cam era i n t he ba th ro om

so th atitwou ldreco rdth e are a in fro ntof t he sh owe r. In each vi de o, Os or io ’s st ep daug ht er was co m pl et el y na ke d. A few d ay s l at er, the po li ce fo un d a n a dd it io na l m em ory cardin Oso rio ’s tru ck . This m em ory card co nt ai ne d fi ve vi de os of Os or io set ti ng up th e cam era i n t he ba th ro om an d t he n h is st ep daug ht er u ndres si ng . His s te pd au gh te r was co m pl et el y na ke d i n t he vi de os . Oso rio pl ead edgu il ty to p ro du ct io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 2 Case: 11-16107 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 2 of 9U.S.C. § 2 25 1( a). His ba se off en se lev el was 3 2, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .1. He rece iv eda two -le ve l i nc reas e, un de r § 2 G2.1 (b )(1 )(B) , bec au se hi s st ep daug ht er was be twee n t he ag es of 1 2 a nd16 y ears , andhe rece iv eda two -le ve l in crea se , un de r § 2 G2.1 (b )(5 ), du e to hi s cu st od ia l re la ti on sh ip with the m in or vi ct im . Und er § 4B 1.5 (b )(1 ), Oso rio rece iv eda fi ve -le ve l en ha nc em en t b ecau se hi s o ffen se was aco ve redsex cri m e, §§ 4B 1.1 an d 4 B1 .5(a ) di d n otap pl y , andhe en ga ge d i n apa tt ern of a ct iv it y in vo lv in g p ro hi bi te d s ex ua l co nduc t. Aft er rece iv in g ath ree- le ve l re du ct io n fo r acc ep ta nc e o f res po ns ib il it y , un de r § 3 E1.1 (a), (b ), Oso rio ’s to ta l o ffen se lev el was 3 8. Ba se d o n a n o ffen se lev el of 38 an d acri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I , Oso rio ’s gu id el in e ran ge was 2 35 to 29 3 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The st atut ory sen te nc in g ra ng e was 18 0 t o 3 60 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Oso rio di d n otob ject t o t he PSI, b uthe di d s ub m ita le tt er i n wh ic h so m e o f hi s fr ie nd s i nd ic at edth athe was ade di cat edan d h ard -wo rk in g i nd iv idua l. At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d tha t i t h adrev ie wedth e factua l b as is forth e g ui lt y pl ea, the pl ea ag reem en t, the pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort (“ PSI” ), an d the let te r subm it te d o n Os or io ’s beh al f. Oso rio st at ed , th ro ug h co un se l, tha t h is off

en se was “ ve ry

ser io us ,” bu t h e n ot edth athe ha d p le ad ed gu il ty andtak enres po ns ib il it y forhi s ac ti on s. He as ke d t he co urt t o i m po se th e st atut ory m in im um sen te nc e o f 18 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, wh ic h h e arg ue d, was 3 Case: 11-16107 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 3 of 9su ffi ci en t u nd er the fact or s s etforth in 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Not hi ng in Oso rio ’s

cas e warra nt edim

po si ng a lo ng er s en te nc e th anth e st atut ory min im um sen te nc e. Oso rio no te d t ha t h e rec ei ve d e nh an cem en ts to hi s b as e o ffen se lev el du e to th e vi ct im ’s age an d Os or io ’s cus to di al rel at io ns hi p wi th th e m in orvi ct im . Non ethe le ss , were i t n otfor§ 4 B1 .5, Os or io ’s to ta l o ffen se lev el wou ldha ve be en 33 , andhi s g ui de li ne ran ge wou ldha ve be en13 5 t o 1 68 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The co urt s ta te d t ha t i t h adco ns id eredth e p art ie s’ st at em en ts ; t he PSI, wh ic h co nt ai ne d t he advi so ry

gu id el in e ran ge ; an d t he st atut ory fact or s. Th e co urt fo un d th ata lo w-en d g ui de li ne ran ge was s uf fic ie ntto de te r Oso rio fro m futur e cri m in al co nduc t, an d t he co urt i m po se d a23 5- m on th sen te nc e.

II. W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e u nd 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 St at 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 , we wil l af firm a se nt en ce “ un le ss we fin d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt h as m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Fr az ie r , 38 7 F .3d12 44 , 12 59 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) ( en ba nc ). “ [W] e wil l n otsec on d g ue ss th e wei gh t (o r la ckth ereo f) tha t t he [di st ric t co urt] acco rd edto a gi ve n fa ct or. . . as lo ng as t he sen te nc e u lt im at el y im po se d i s reas on ab le inli gh t o f al l

th e ci rcu m st an ces pre se nt ed .” Uni te d Sta tes v. S ni pe s , 4 Case: 11-16107 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 4 of 961 1 F .3d85 5, 8 72 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) , cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 29 62 (20 11 ). The p art y

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 atitis 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 t he 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 in it 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, 12 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 [U.S. Sen te nc in g] Co m

m is si on ’s ownreas on in g t ha t t he Gui de li ne s s en te nc e is a pr op er 5 Case: 11-16107 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 5 of 9se 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) in th 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 . “ Whe re the de fen dantor p ro se cu to r pr es en ts no nf riv ol ou s reas on s fo r im

po si ng a di ffer en t s en te nc e, ho wev er, the jud ge wil l n orm al ly go fu rth er an d e xp la in why he ha s re jecte d t ho se arg um en ts .” Id. Whe re the ci rcu m st an ces all ow fo r it , th e co urt m ay pro vi de a br ie f ex pl an at io n a s t o wh y it ha s re jecte d areque stfora va ria nc e. Id . Thu s, t he co urt’s ac kn owl ed gm en t t ha t i t ha s co ns id eredth e § 35 53 (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 .3dat 7 86 . 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. Id. at 7 88 . The d is tri ctco urt i s re qu ire d t o “ im po se a se nt en ce su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n n eces sa ry , to co m pl y with t he pu rp os es setforth in ” 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). The se pu rp os es in cl ud e th e n eedto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of the off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t pu ni sh m 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 p ub li c fro m th e de fen 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 dant ’s hi st ory an d ch arac te ris ti cs , th e k in ds of s en te nc es av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e 6 Case: 11-16107 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 6 of 9pe rti ne ntpo li cy st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , th e n eedto av oi d un warra nt edsen 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 ). The n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s “ is co nc ern edwith u nwarran te d d is pa rit ie s i n s en te nc es am on g fe de ral de fen da nt s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Do ca mpo , 57 3 F .3d10 91 , 11 02 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Thu s,

“ di sp arat e fed eral an d s ta te sen te nc es ” are no t a c on cern un de r § 3 55 3( a). Id.

“ W e o rd in ari ly exp ecta se nt en ce wi th inth e Gui de li ne s ra ng e to be reas on ab le .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The reas on ab le ne ss of asen te nc e m ay als o b e in di cat edwhen th e se nt en ce im po se d i s wel l b el ow t he st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e. Se e id. The g oa l o f se nt en ci ng “ is to lo ckina se nt en ce tha t i s n otto o s ho rt andno t t oo lo ng , bu t ju st rig htto serve th e p ur

po se s o f § 3 55 3( a).” Ir ey , 61 2 F .3dat 1 19 7. We hav e cri ti ci zedth e u se of t he term “pa rs im on y

pri nc ip le ” b ecau se “ itten ds to sl an t t he di sc us si on to wardsh orte r se nt en ces by em ph as iz in g o nl y ” th e n eedto av oi d se nt en ces th atare t oo lo ng . Id. Oso rio ’s sen te nc e is bo th pro 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, an d ex pl ai ne d t ha t a 2 35 -m on th sen te nc e was su ffi ci en t t o d et er Os or io fro m futur e 7 Case: 11-16107 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 7 of 9cri m in al co nduc t. As t he co urt ex pl ic it ly stat edth atitco ns id eredth e § 35 53 (a)

fact or s an d m en ti on edde te rren ce s pe ci fic al ly, Oso rio ’s arg um en t t ha t t he co urt on ly con si de redth e g ui de li ne ran ge is witho utm eri t. Mo reo ve r, gi ve n t he ci rcu m st an ces of the cas e, th e co urt p ro vi de d s uf fic ie ntde ta il to expl ai n i ts de ci si on to im

po se a se nt en ce wi th in th e g ui de li ne ran ge . Se e Rita , 55 1 U.S. at 35 6- 57 , 12 7 S .Ct. at24 68 . The co urt s ta te d t ha t i t h adco ns id eredth e p art ie s’ st at em en ts . In h is reque stfora va ria nc e, Oso rio ackno wled ge d tha t h is cri m e was ve ry ser io us an d t ha t t he gu id el in e ran ge was g reat er tha n t he st atut ory m in im um se nt en ce due to th e v ic ti m ’s age , Oso rio ’s cus to di al rol e, an d t he § 4 B1 .5 en ha nc em en t. Alt ho ug h Os or io arg ue d t ha t s uc h fa ct or s d idno t warran t a 23 5- m on th sen te nc e, itis cle ar tha t t he co urt co ns id eredan d re jecte d t ha t arg um en t an d d et erm in edth atth e Co m m is si onco rrec tl y

rel ie d o n t ho se fact or s i n es tabl is hi ng th e g ui de li ne ran ge . Se e Rita , 55 1 U.S. at35 6- 57 , 12 7 S .Ct. at24 68 . Bec au se th e co urt ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t i t co ns id eredbo th th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s an d th e p art ie s’ arg um en ts , it s ex pl an at io n o f th e se nt en ce was su ffi ci en t. Se e Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 86 . Fu rth er, Oso rio ’s arg um en t t ha t t he co urt s ho ul d h av e co ns id eredFlo rid a’s m ax im um sen te nc e fo r hi s co nduc t i s i nc orrect . One o f th e g oa ls of s en te nc in g i s to av oi d u nwa rran te d d is pa rit ie s i n fe de ral sen te nc es . Se e Doc amp o , 57 3 F .3dat 8 Case: 11-16107 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 8 of 911 02 . This sen te nc in g g oa l d oe s n otad dr es s “ di sp arat e fed eral an d s ta te

se nt en ces ,” an d t he co urt, the refo re, d idno t n eedto co ns id er wh atOso rio ’s se nt en ce m ig htha ve be enin st at e co urt. Id. Oso rio ’s sen te nc e is als o s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e in li gh t o f th e rec or d a nd th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Th e co urt’s s en te nc e o f 23 5 m on th s was withi n t he 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 reas on ab le . Se e Gon za le z , 55 0 F .3dat 1 32 4. Os or io ’s sen te nc e was als o wel l be lo w th e 3 60 -m on th st atut ory m ax im um pe na lt y , furth er i nd ic at in g t ha t i t was a reas on ab le sen te nc e. Se e id. The s en te nc e, m or eo ve r, m etth e g oa ls en co m pa ss ed wit hi n § 35 53 (a). Os or io m ad e n in e v id eo reco rd in gs of h is 14 -y ear- ol d st ep daug ht er u ndres si ng . Con si de rin g Os or io ’s di sr eg ardfor th e law, a sen te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in e 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 Os or io fro m furth er cr im in al act iv it y , andpro te ctth e publ ic . Due t o t he ser io us na tu re o f hi s cr im e, a lo wer s en te nc e was no t warra nt ed , andOso rio ’s par si m on y pri nc ip le arg um en t m

us t fa il . Se e Ir ey , 61 2 F.3 d a t 1 19 7. Ba se d o n the ab ov e, Oso rio ’s ul ti m at e se nt en ce was reas on ab le , and we wil l n otre-wei gh th e § 35 53 (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 Oso rio ’s sen te nc e. AFFIRMED. 9 Case: 11-16107 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 9 of 9