I n h is Pr e se nte nc ingRe po rt , D e fe nd ant a dv ise s th a t th e c or re c t sp e lli ngof

his surn a me is 1 “B urnett.” N onetheless, a s all court doc uments use the spelling “B urnette,” for the pur poses of continuity so too will t his opinion. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 11a0149n.06 No. 08-5833 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, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. JOH NN Y R . BU RN ETTE, Defendan t-Appellant. / ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE EA STER

N D ISTRIC T OF TEN NE SSEE

BEF OR E: DA UG HTREY , C LA Y a nd WH ITE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. Def endant Johnny

Bur nette appe als his within-Guidelines sentenc e of lif e tim e su pe rv ise d r e le a se , e nte re d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

on Ju ne 20 , 20 08 , for

re c e ipt of c hil d pornog raphy

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) (A). D efe ndant arg ues that the district cour t’s sentenc e wa s both procedur ally and substantively

unrea sonable. For the re asons set for

th below, we AF F IRM the district court’s de cision.

BACK GR OUND I n 2006, police rec eived information that J ohnny Rae Bur nette (“B urnett e” ) h ad re ceived
c hil d p or no g ra ph y thr ou g h th e int e rn e t. On July 20 , 2 00 6, B ur

net te con sen ted to a

se arc h o f h is 1No. 08-5833

Eac h video was c ounted at 75 imag es, pursua nt to the Guidelines. Some videos contained 2 de pic tio ns of

c hil dr e n e ng a g e d in

se xua l a c ts w itha du lts , a nd a t least on e ima g e de pic te d a

c hil d wi th b ound

ha nd s. -2- residenc e. Dur ing the sear ch police ide ntified two computers be longingto Burne tte, whi ch they
se ize d a lon g wi th a

numbe r o f o the r i te ms. Upon fore nsic examination of the computer s, police discover ed thirty -two videos depic ting pre- pubesce nt children, some a s y oung as fo u r y ear s old; twenty -two of the vide os contained de pic tio ns of

c hil dr e n invo lve d in

se xua l a c ts, inc lud ingse xua l a c ts w itha du lts . Po lic e a lso discovere d 153 thumbnail imag es of child pornog raphy . I t appea rs from the f

orensic e x amination that all of t he im ag es, and the m ajority of t he videos, wer e downloaded from the inter net on J une 27, 2006. Bur

nette wa s char g ed with re ceipt of c h i ld pornog raphy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a) (2)( A) , t o which he ple aded guilty pursuant to a plea

ag ree ment. Under

the Sentencing Guidelines (“ Guidelines” or “U.S.S.G”), Burne tte’s base offe nse l evel was calc ulated at 22 with a criminal history

cate g ory of I . His sentence was e nhance d by five levels for

being in possession of
mor e tha n 6 00 ima g e s, tw o le ve ls f or po sse ssi ngima g e s d e pic tin g pr e -p ub e sc e nt c hil dr e n, t wo le ve ls for usinga computer t o p o s s es s t he imag es, and a n additional four leve ls for possessing imag es depicting sadistic condu ct
. Be cause he wa s in rece ipt of child pornog raphy , but there w as no 2 intention to dis tribute, he re ceive d a two leve l reduc tion. He also rec eived a three level re duction for a cce p ti n g r e s p o n s ib il it y f o r th e c r im e . T h e r e f

o r e , B u r n e tt e ’ s a d ju s te d b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l w as
c a lc ulate d at 30 , whi c h pro du c e d a Gu ide lin e s r ang e of

97 to 1 21 mon ths of

imp ri so nme nt. B ur

ne tteNo. 08-5833

A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A is considered a “s ex o ff ense” under G uidelines 3 definitions. U.S. Senten ci n g Gu idelines Manual § 5D1.2, c mt. n1 (2006). A policy statement included at § 5D1.2 r eads: “ I f the instant o ff en s e of convic tion is a sex offe nse, howe ver, the statutory maxi mum term of supervise d rele ase is re commended.”
-3- was a lso subject to a statutory minimum sentenc e of 60 months of imprisonment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(1)
. I n addition, the imposit ion of any term of supe rvised re lease , up to life, was a uthorized under 18 U. S.C. § 3 58 3( k) . A te rm of su pe rv ise d r e le a se up to l if

e wa s a lso pr e sc ri be d b y

the Gu ide lin e s,
un de r U .S. S.G § 5 D1 .2 , f or se xua l of fe ns e s. 3 As part of his plea agr eeme nt, Burne tte rec og nized that “the Court may impose any

lawful term of supervised relea se.” B urnette’ s Presentenc e Investig ation Report (“ PSR ”) a lso stated that he wa s subject to a ter

m of supervised r elea se of two y ear s to li fe. A t sentencing , Bur nette ra ised no objections to any

aspec t of the PSR. On J une 5, 2008, B urnette w as sentenc ed to 97 months of incar cer ation followed by a life te rm of super

vised rele ase. Bur nette then f

iled this timely appea l. This Court has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742.

DI SCU SSIO N I. Stand ard of Review This C o u rt re v i ews a

sentenc e imposed by

the district court unde r an a buse of discr etion standard. United States v. Bolds , 5 11 F .3 d 5 68 , 5 78 (6 th C ir . 200 7). T he Court re vie ws fo r b oth proce dural and substantive rea sonablene ss. Un ite d S tates v . B arah on a-

Mo nte ne gr o , 565 F.3d 980,No. 08-5833

The life te rm of supervised rele ase is a withi n-Guideline sentence for Burne tte’s offense a s 4 of the 2006 e dition of the Guidelines. Se e Un ite d S tates v . P re

sto , 498 F.3d 415, 421 n.3 ( 6th Cir. 2007). -4- 983 (6th Cir. 2009). Withi n-Guidelines r ang e sente nces a re a ffor ded a r eb u t t ab l e presumption of
re a so na ble ne ss. United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 389 ( 6th Cir.2008) (en ba nc). 4 I n deter mining if a

sentenc e is proce durally

rea sonable, we consider whether the distric t c ourt “c o m m i t t ed [ a] s i gn i fi ca n t p ro ce d u ra l erro r, s u ch as fa i l i n g t o ca l cu l at e (o r i mp ro p er l y ca l cu l at i n g) the Gu ide lin e s r ang e , tr e a tin g the Gu ide lin e s as m and a tor y , f a ili ngto c on sid e r t

he § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s, selec ting a

sentenc e base d on clea

rly err oneous fa ct s , or fa iling to ade quately explain the chosen sentenc e—including an explanation f or any deviation from the Guidelines rang e.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007 ). Fo r s entences of supe rvised re lease , we c onsider “the fac tors set forth in sec tion 3553(a)( 1), (a )(2)(B ), (a)(2) (C), (a )(2) (D), ( a)( 4), (a )(5) , (a) (6), a nd (a) (7).” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c). I n straig htforwa

rd t erms, “the cruc ial question [for proce dural re asonable ness] is whether the
rec ord m akes c lear

that the sentenc ing judg e listened to ea ch ar g ument, considere d the supporting evidenc e, wa s fully

awa re of the defe ndant’s circ umstances and took the m into acc ount in sentencing him.” United St ates v. W

allace , 597 F.3d 794, 804 (6th Cir. 2010) (citations and inter nal quotation marks omitted). Ne xt, w e tur

n to the q ue sti on of su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss. “ A s e nte nc e is s ub sta nti ve ly
unre a so na

ble if the dis tr ic t c ourt

‘s e l e c t s t h e s e nt e n c e a

r b i tr ari ly , b a se s th e se nte nc e on imp e rm iss ibl e fa c tor s, fa ils to c on sid e r p e rt ine nt § 3553 (a ) fa c tor s or g ive s an unr e a so na ble a mou nt of we ig ht t o any pertinent fa ctor.’” Un ite d Sta te s v . H us e in , 4 7 8 F. 3 d

3 1 8 , 3 3 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g UnitedNo. 08-5833

-5- States v. C

aver , 470 F.3d 220, 248 ( 6th Cir. 2006)). For sentenc es of supe rvised re lease , the sentenc ing c ourt is require d to consider the § 3583( c) f actor s. Un ite d S

tates v . P re

sto , 498 F.3d 415, 418 (6th Cir. 2007). At sentenc ing, a court must a rticulate the rationale underly ing a g iven sentenc e in a wa y that
cre ates a rec ord suffic ient for mea

ningf ul appellate r eview. See B olds , 511 F.3d at 580. I n addition, “whe re a defe ndant ra ises a par

ticular a rg ument in seekinga lower sentenc e, the r ecor d must reflec t both that the distr i ct judg e conside red the defe ndant’s ar g ument and that the judg e explained the basis for r ejec ting it.” United States v. Richardson , 437 F.3d 550, 554 ( 6th Cir. 2006). T h e district c ourt is not require d to a ddress ever y argument made by a defe ndant, but only those that have been properly develope d and are nonfr ivolous. Un ite d Sta te s v . S mi th , 510 F.3d 603, 608 ( 6th Cir. 2007). “Where the def

endant or prosec utor prese nts nonfrivolous rea sons for impos ing a differ ent
se nte nc e . . . [s]o me tim e s th e c ir c ums tanc e s w ill c a ll f or a br ie f expl anatio n; s ome tim e s th e y wi ll c a ll for a leng thier explanation” Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007). A brief explanation can be leg ally

sufficie nt. Id. at 358. I n a dd iti on

to t he fa c tor s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ou rt mu st c on sid e r, the dis tric t c ourt may a lso consider a

wide var iety

of other f

actor s, including its own ex p er i en ce , wh ere rele vant. We have
re c e ntl y re ite rate d th a t “[ i]n d e te rm ini ngwh a t se nte nc e to i mpo se , ‘ a jud g e may

a pp ro pr iate ly conduct a n inquiry broad in scope , larg ely

unlimit ed e i t her a s to the kind of information he may consider, or the s ource from which it may come.’ ” United States v. Be y , 38 4 F
. Ap p’ x 4 86 , 49 0 ( 6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Tuck er , 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972)).No. 08-5833

-6- II. Ana lys is Bur nette arg ues that t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt wa s “p ro ce d u ra l l y an d s u b s t an t i v el y

unrea sonable whe n it based its decision to impose l i fe t i m e supervision on possibly err oneous fa cts (the unnamed ‘scientific study ’) a

nd failed to a dequate ly

explain it s rea soning.” (De f.’s B r. 7.) The United States argues that B urnette’ s proce dural re ason ablene ss claim must be review ed under the plain er

ror standard. We a g ree . I n this Circuit, district c ourts are require d, “af ter pronounc ing the defe ndant’s sente nce but befor e adjourning the sentenc ing hear ing, to ask t he parties whether they have any objections to the sentenc e just pronounce d that have not pr eviously been r aised.” Un ite d States v . B os tic , 371 F.3d 865, 872 (6th Cir. 2004) (footnote omitted). I n case s where the sentenc ing judg e prope rly poses the Bostic question, “the de fenda nt ge nera lly

forf eits t h e ri gh t t o challeng e on appe al any proce dural
err ors t o which he did not object at the t ime of sentencing .” United States v. He rrera-Zuniga , 571 F.3d 568, 578 ( 6th Ci r. 2 0 0 9 ). This is because the purpose of the Bostic rule is to “g ive the prosec ution and defe nse alike a n opportunity

to articulate any

objection a n d the g rounds there for; [to] a id t he dis tr ic t c ourt

in c or re c tin g any

e rr or and a llo w it to do so on the sp ot; and [to] f a c ili tate the appe llate proc ess by

highlig hting pr ecise ly

which objec tions have be en pre serve d.” Vonner , 516 F .3 d at 385 (i nte rn a l citatio ns and qu otatio ns omi tte d) . Cla ims that are no t pr e se rv e d a re su bje c t to plain err or re view. See H errera-Zuniga , 571 F.3d at 580. I n this case, while B urnette did ra ise an objec tion after the district court posed the Bo st ic question, the objection wa s not specific e noug h to allow the cour t to corre ct the per ceive d proce dural
err or “on the spot.” I n response to the Bo sti c question, Bur nette objec ted by

stating: “ Your honor,No. 08-5833

-7- in li g h t o f , Ig u e s s , th e r e c e n t c a s e la w in Vonner , I gu es s so the rec ord ca n ref lect that, we do sp e c if ic a lly ob je c t to the lif

e tim e su pe rv isi on , th e lif

e tim e su pe rv ise d re le a se .” (S e nt. Tr . 1 9. ) Wh ile this objection is sufficient to prese rve his substantive re asonabl eness claim, it falls short of hig hli g hti ngthe iss ue s und e rl y ingthe pr oc e dura l re a so na ble ne ss cl a im that he nowra ise s b e fo re thi s Court. The objec tion speaks neith er t o Bu rnette’ s assertion that the district cour t’s citation to an “unname d scient ific study ” wa s flawe d, nor to his alleg ation that the cour t’s observation that the term of super vised rele ase c ould be terminate d by Bur n et t e’ s p robation officer w as improper . Both of the se iss ue s w e re of

the so rt th at cou ld hav e be e n a dd re sse d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

on the sp ot, if proper ly raised a t sentencing . There fore , Bur nette’s c laim is reviewe d for plain e rror . I n order to preva il under the plain err or st andar d, the pl aintiff mus t show an “(1) error ( 2) that
wa s o bv iou s o r c le ar, (3 ) that a ff e c te d de fe nd ant’ s su

bs tanti a l r ig hts and

(4 ) t hat a ff e c te d th e fa ir

ne ss, integ rity , or public reputation of the judicial proce eding s.” W allace , 597 F.3d at 802 (citing Vonner , 516 F.3d at 386).

A. P r oc e dur al R e as ona ble ne ss B ur ne tte argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt wa s p ro c e dura lly

unre a so nab le “ wh e n it

ba se d it s de c isi on to imp os e lif

e tim e su pe rv isi on on po ssi bly e rr on e ou s fa c ts. ” Th e e rr on e ou s f a c t B ur ne tte points to i s an “u n n am ed scie ntific study ,” which the district court mentioned a s one of se vera l fac tors that may

have inf luence d its sentenc ing considerations. Bur nette ar g ues that this study was “the c rux of the justi fication for [the district court’s] ruling.” ( Def .’s B r. 12.) I n support of this argument, Bur nette excer

pts b u t a s i n gl e portion of the se ntencing tr ans c ri pt, in whic h th e dis tr ic t c ourt make s th e fo llo wi ngstate me nt:No. 08-5833

-8- Th e re is a re qu e st o n your c ouns e l’ s p art that the Court

no t im po se a te rm of lif e tim e su pe rv isi on . T he Court

ha s a lso c on sid e re d that , bu t the C ourt ha s d e c ide d n ot t o c omp ly wi t h t h a tr e qu e s t , b a s i c a l l y f o r t w o r e a s o n s : [a g e an d

a b i l i ty t o t e r m i n a te e ar ly]. ( Id. at 11.) This excerpt, such as it is, misrepre sents the district court’s se ntencinganaly sis as a whole. I nstead, it only

speaks to the c ourt’s ar

ticulation of why it reje cted Burne tte’s arg ument for a lower sentenc e of supe rvised re lease , as we discuss below. A re view of the entire sentencing transcr ipt revea ls the following: The district court beg an by acknow ledg ing that the sen t en cing g uidelines are advisory and not mandator

y , as per United S ta tes v. Book

er , 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005). (Sent. Tr . 5.) The c ourt proce eded to e x plain the require ment to consider a ll § 3553(a) f actor s at sentenc ing. (

Id. ) The c ourt continued by providing the pa rt ie s an o pp or

tun ity to o bje c t to the c a lc ulate d G uid e lin e ra ng e and to any a sp e c t of the PSR; neither pa rty set forth an objection. (

Id. at 4-5.) A fter g iving e ach pa rty a cha nce to pr esent a

ny final state me nts or

argume nts , th e c ourt

g a ve its fu ll s e nte nc ingana ly sis
. The c ourt beg an by

discussing the “natur e and c ircumstance s of the off ense,” and in doing so acknow ledg ed that B urnette w as neither a manufa cture r nor a produc er of child pornog raphy , but instead a c onsumer. (

Id. at 11 .) Th e c ourt

state d th a t be inga

c on sume r i s st ill se ri ou s, be c a us e
consumers c reate a mar

ket for mor e child pornog raphy . ( Id. ) The court further

stated that it had consider ed B urnette’ s backg round and his history . ( Id. ) The c ourt conc luded that a within-Guide lines sentence was “appr opriate and
. . . will fulfill all the purposes of Sec tion 3553 of Title 18 of the United States Code.” ( Id. )No. 08-5833

-9- Ha vin g thu s la id o ut i ts o ve ra ll s e nte nc ingc on sid erat io ns , th e c ourt the n n e c e ssa

ri ly
a d dr e s s e d B u r

n e tt e ’ s ar g u me n ts f

o r a s e n te n c e o f s u

p e r v is e d r e le a s e o f le s s th an a life term. See Un ited St ate

s v . B lac k we ll , 459 F.3d 739, 774 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (noting that “the blac k letter lawof this Circuit require s district c ourts to consider a ll factors br oug ht to their attention by a def endant.” ). The c ourt stated that it was c oncer ned, based on its ex perie nce, that Burne tte was “ very , very y oung for this ty pe of of fense .” (Sent. Tr . 12.) The c ourt continued: Th e re has [ sic ] be e n s ome sc ie nti fi c stu die s th a t su g g e st that th e old e r p e op le become , the strong er the urg e is to involve themselves in this. That may or may not be true . But be cause of y our y oung ag e for this ty pe of offe nse, the Court thinks that a le ng thy te rm of su pe rv isi on wo uld be a pp ro pr iate jus t to pr ote c t the pu bli c in c a se y ou do have strong er ur g es in the future
. ( Id. ) The c ourt then explained that a term of super vised rele ase c ould be terminate d in the future, “if the pr obation office rs who are supervising [Burnette] deter mine that they

no longe r believe that
su p er v i sion is appropriate.” ( Id. ) Ther efor e, the c ourt stated, the ultimate leng th of the sentenc e would “be ba sed to some extent upon [ Bur nette’s] own behavior.” ( Id. at 13.) The c ourt conc luded by

presc ri b i n g substance a

buse treatment and sexual offende r and mental hea lth treatment for Bur nette, an a cknowledg ment of “ne eded med i ca l car e, or othe r
corr ectional tre atment.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2)( D). I t appea rs that the district court turned to its own empirical per ception of the median ag e of
se x off e nd e rs , a nd the “ un name d sci e nti fi c stu dy ,” in s pe c if ic re sp on se to t

he fa c tor s th a t B ur

ne tte raised in a

rg ument for a

lower se ntence . DuringBur nette’s f inal statement t o the cour

t, his counsel
a llu de d to his y oung a g e and de ve lop ing matur ity a s a mit ig a tin g fa c tor (s tatin g that “ a cert a inNo. 08-5833

-10- ma tur ity
. . . h a s g ro wn

in M r. B ur

ne tte ” si nce the t ime of

the c omm iss ion

of the c ri me ), and

a lso maintained that B urnette w as unlikely to reoff end (a rg uing that “there is no indication that [Burnette] is a continuing threat . . . .”). (Sent. Tr . 7-8.) Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s state me nts re g ard ing B ur ne tte ’s a g e we re a dir e c t and per mis sib le response to these sentenc ing a rg uments. I n United States v. Janosk o , a ca se in which the pla intiff challe n ged the district cour t’s conce rn about the pr obability of the de fenda

nt committi ng future sexual offenses, we h eld t hat “[t] he district cour t was fr ee to r eac h its own conclusion about defe ndant’s dang er to the c ommunity based on the circ umstances o f t h e offe nse and the district court’s y ear s of experienc e moni toring individuals on parole and supervised rele ase.” 355 F. App’ x 892, 897 (6th Cir. 2009). In the instant case , the cour t made cle ar that i t d i d n o t att ribute much
we ig ht t o th e sc ie nti fi c stu die s ( st ati ng that th e y “ may or may no t be tr ue ” ) a nd that it re a c he d it s conclusion based on its own extensive e x perie nce. U nder the circ umstances, ther efor e, the district
c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n b y

re fe rr ingto t

he sc ie nti fi c stu die s. I t is clear that the district court took into consideration all of the necessar y fac tors in rea ching its senten ci n g d et er mination and that it properly articulated its rationale a nd addre ssed the par

ties arguments for other

sentenc es. Unde r the plain err or standard, w e ca nnot find that the district court
co m m i t t edan y

erro r i n s o d o i n g. B. Subst ant ive Re as ona ble ne ss B ur ne tte fu rt he r a rgue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt wa s “ su bs tanti ve ly

unreas on abl e wh e n it

did not consider Mr . Bur

nette’s individual situation when imposing life time supervision.” (De f.’s B r. 7.) Bu rn et t e makes the same a rg uments to support his subst antive unre asonable ness claim as f orNo. 08-5833

Bu rn et t e h adp re v i o u s l y

b ee n arre s t ed fo r co n t ri b u t i n g t o t h e d el i n qu en cy o f a m i n o r, t h o u gh 5 the ca se wa s later dismissed for f ailure to prose cute. The char g e stemmed fr om Burne tte’s involvement with a 14 y ear old gir l. This information was re flec ted in Bur nette’s PSR. (PS R at 7.) -11- proce dural unre asonable ness, addingthe following fac tors: that the district court’s foc us on Burn ett e’s a g e “disre g ards Mr. B urnette’ s individual circumstance s;” that Bur nette has no history of eng ag ing in c hild pornog raphy and had no intention of di stributing any pornog raphic imag es; and th a t B u r n e tt e s u f f e r s f r o m d e p r e s s io n , f

o r w h ic h h e in d e p e n d e n tl y s o u g h t t r e a tm e n t b efor e sentenc ing. (

Id. a t 14.) Th e dis tr ic t court , B ur ne tte argue s, fa ile d to pr op e rl y c on sid e r a

ny of the se fa c tor s. B u r

n e t t e d o e s n o tar g u e t h a tt h e i mp o s e d t e r m o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e w a s s e l e c t e d

ar b i t r ar i l y; but instead argues that t he sentence was based on impermissible fac tors (i.e., the scientific study ) and that th e c o u rt u n f

a ir ly w e ig h e d c e rta in f

a c to r s , p r im ar il y b y n o t p la c in g mo r e im p o rta n c e on B u r n e t t e ’ s m e n t a l h e a l t h p r o b l e m s an d h i s c l e anc r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y. The fa ct that the district c ourt arr ived at a sentenc e that was within-Guidelines ( at the bottom rang e for th e te r

m o f in c ar c e r a ti o n an d th e to p r an g e f o r th e te r m o f s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e ) does not indicate that the court failed to pr operly consider Bur nette’s individual circ umstances. See J anosko , 355 F. App’ x at 896 (“ Finding that an appr opriate se ntence under se cti o n 3 5 5 3 falls within the g uidelines rang e is not inherently suspect.”)
. There is nothing to indicate that the district court did not proper ly consider the fac tors that Bur nette now r aises in this appea l. I n calc ulating Bur nette’s c riminal history

level at Cate g ory

I , the basis for whic h is refle cted in his PSR , the cour t clear ly took into consideratio n the abse nce of a
c ri min a l his tor

y inv olv ing c hil d po rn og ra ph y . B ur ne tte wa s a lso g ive n a

tw o p oin t r e du c tio n in

his 5No. 08-5833

-12- base of fense level for

lack of intent to dist ribute, so this fac tor was also proper ly taken into account in s e nte nc ing ; th e dis tr ic t c ourt a lso sp e c if

ic a lly me nti on e d its co ns ide ratio n of the fa c t th a t B ur ne tte
was a “consume r” of

child pornogra p h y , not a manufa cture r or pr oducer The c ourt order ed that Bur nette re ceive both sex ual offe nder a nd mental hea lth treatment while in custody , which is a strong ind ic a tio n th a t th e c ourt c on sid e re d, and g a ve we ig ht to, the state of B ur ne tte ’s me nta l he a lth . A ll of thi s is c le ar e vid e nc e tha t the di st ri ct court

too k B ur

ne tte ’s ind ivi du a l c ir c ums tanc e s in to
c o n s i d e r a t i o nan d

d e t e r m i n e d h i s s e n t e n c e a c c o r d i n g l y. The policy statement embodied in § 5D1.2 of the Guidelines, re commending a life te rm of supervised r elea se for

sex offender s, also cuts ag ainst Bur nette’s a rg ument that the district court’s imposit ion of a life te rm o f s u pervised r elea se wa s substantively unrea sonable. Sec tion 3553(c) instructs the sentenc ing judg e to consider , among the other f actor s, “any pertinent policy statement . . . issued by

the SentencingCommi ssion.” 18 U.S .C. § 3553(a)( 5). Ther efor e, the district cour t
was clea rly allowed to take the policy statement into c onsideration in f ormin g i t s deter

mination. Coupling the re commendation embodied in this policy statem en t with the district court’s consideration of Bur

nette’s individual circ umstances—includingall of the fa ctors that Bur nette now
ra ise s in thi s a pp e a l—l e a ds us to c on c lud e that B ur ne tte ’s se nte nc e was no t su bs tanti ve ly
unrea sonable. CO NC LU SION B ur n e t t e h a s f

a i l e d t o s h o w t h a th i s s e n t e n c e w a s e i t h e r s u b s t an t i v e l y

o r p r o c e d u r a l ly
unrea sonable. We there fore hold that the district court did not err when it se ntence d Bur

nette to a life term of

supervised r elea se, and w e AF F IRM the district court’s de cision.