Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30703 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. R O B E R T C L IF T O N R E N F R O E , II D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 07- C R

- 20010- 1
B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * R obertC l i f

t on R en f

roe app eal s f

rom hi s gui l t y- pl ea conv i ct i on of p rod u cti on of c h ild po rn og ra p h y. H e ch a l l en ge s th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s d ecisi on to dep ar t u p w a rd l y f

rom t h e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es r an ge t o t h e st atutor y m a x im u m te r m o f 3 0 y e a r s o f im p r is o n m e n t. S ee1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2251 ( e)
. R en f roe ar gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o u rtm ad e ac l e ar l y e r r o ne o us fac t ualf i ndi ng t hathe engage d i n uncharg ed co ndu c ti nvolvi ng t he di st r ibut i on of c hi l d por nogr aphy. R en froe furth er con ten d s th a t th e d i stri ct co u rt i m p rop erly b a sed i ts de ci sion to United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30703

2 depar ton hi s pri orc onvi c t i on of pos se ss i on o f

c hi l d por nogr aphy, c l ai m i ng t hat h i s pri or convic t i on w as ad equ atel y accoun t ed f or i n hi s c ri m i n alhi st ory sc ore, andt hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s ut i l i z at i o n o f t he c o nvi c t i o n a s abasi s f o rt he d e p a r tu r e im p lic itlyv io la te dh is p le a a g r e e m e n t. W e r e vi e w as e nt e nc e a bo ve t he g ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng r ang e und e rt he abu se- of

- di scr et i on st an da rd . F i rst , w e exam i n e w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourt c o m m itt e da n y p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r s , “s u c h a s fa ilin gto ca lc u la te (o rim p r o p e r ly
c al c ul at i ng) t he G ui de l i ne s r ang e , t r e at i ng t he G ui de l i ne s a s m and at o r y, fai l i ng t o c o ns i de rt he § 3 55 3( a) fac t o r s , s e l e c t i ng a s e nt e nc e ba s e d o n c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us fac t s, orfai l i ng t o ad equat ely e xpl ai n t he c hos en s ent enc e— i ncl udi ng an ex p l a n a ti on for a n y d ev i a ti on f rom the G u i d eli n es ra n ge . ” G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 128 S
. C t . 586 , 597 ( 200 7)
. If t h e di st ri ct court’ s dep art u re or vari an ce deci si on i s pr o c e dur al l y s o und, w e t he n c o ns i de r“ t he s ubs t ant ive r e as o nab l e ne s s o f t he
sen te n c e im p o sed u n d er a n ab u se-of- d i scre ti on stan d a rd
. ” I d. W e tak e into
ac c o untt he t o t al i t y o f t he ci r c um s t anc e s , and w e m ayco ns i de rt he ex t e nto f t he d e p a r t u r e o rv a r ia n c e , b u tw e “g iv e d u e d e fe r e n c e t o t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s de t e r m i nat i o n t hat t he § 35 53 ( a) fac t o r s , o n a w ho l e , j us t i f y t he e xt e ntof

t he
va ri a n ce.” Id
. “A n up w ard d epa rt u re by a di str i ctcourti s not an abu se of d i scre ti on i f th e cou rt’ s rea son s for d ep a rti n g 1) ad va n ce th e ob j ectives se t f orth i n 18 U
. S
. C
. § 35 5 3 (a)( 2 ) a n d2) are j u stifi ed bythe fa cts of th e ca se.” Un i t ed S ta tes v. Z u n iga -Per a lta , 442 F
. 3d 345 , 347 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m a rk s o m itted ). T h e rec ord ref

l ect s t h at th e d istr i ctcourtbased i t s deci si on t o dep arton perm i ssibl e fact ors t h at adva n ced t h e obj ect ives setf ort h i n § 3553 ( a) an d w h i ch
w e r e ju s tifie db yt h e fa c ts o f th e ca s e . S e eid
. Th e di st r i c tc our ts ugges t ed t hat t h e a d v iso ry G u i del i n es r an ge di d n otaccoun tadeq u atel y f or t h e severit y of R en f roe’ s c on du ctor provi de j u stpu n i sh m e n t f or t h e of

fen se. Th e courtnoted th a t R e n fr o e h a de n g a g e din co n d u c t, in c lu d in gth e d is tr ib u t i o n o f c h ild po r no gr ap hy, t hatdi d no te nt e ri nt o t he ca l c ul at i o n of t he G ui de l i ne s r ang e . TheN o. 08- 30703

3 cou rt fu rth er ex p ress ed its b eli ef th a t an u p w a rdde p a rtu re w a s ap p rop ri a te to protec t t h e pu bl i c and deterR en f roe— w h o ha d a p ri or c on vi ct i on f or posses si on of chi l d p ornograp h y an d w h om t h e di st ri ctcourti den t i f i ed as a pred ator

— f

rom f ut ure c r i m i nal c onduct
. Th e di st r i c t c our tal so not ed t hatt he G ui del i nes r ange d id n o tp r o p e r lyr e fl e c tth e s p e c if ic c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f t h e o ffe n s e , e .g ., R e n fr o e ’s p r o d u c tio n o f c h ildp o r n o g r a p h yd e p ic tin gh im m a n u a llyto u c h in gth e g e n ita ls of you n g chi l dren , hi s actual m ol est ati on of hi s s i x- year- ol d n i ece and t h e t h reeyear- ol d d au gh t er of hi s gi rl f

ri en d, h i s possessi on of ap proxi m atel y 800 i m ages of ch i l dpo rn og ra p h y, an dh i s violati on of h i s fa m i l y m em b ers’trus t. F u rt h erm ore, t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o dep artupwar dly based i n part o n its fa c tu a l f

i n d i n gth a t R e n fr o e p a r tic ip a te din th e d is tr ib u tio n o f c h ild po r no gr ap hy w as no tc l e ar l y e r r o ne o us . Thi s c o ur tw i l luph o l d afac t ualf i ndi ng “s o lon g a s i t i s p l a u sibl e in li gh t of the reco rdas a w h ole. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. Eka n em , 5 5 5 F .3d 1 7 2 , 1 7 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s o m itted ). I n t he i ns t antc as e , Renf r o e fail e d t o pr e s e ntev i de nc e t o re butt he PSR’ s f i ndi ng th a t t h ir dp a r tie s h a do b ta in e dth e im a g e s th a t R e n fr o e cr e a te d
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v . A lf

ord , 142 F. 3d 825, 831- 32 ( 5t h C i r . 1998)
. M or eo ver , t her e w as e vi de nc e i n t he r e c o r d t hatRenf r o e e nab l e d t he i m ag e s ’di s t r ibut i o n b y pl ac i ng t h em i n an I n t ernet- access ibl e f orm at and di ssem inati ng t hei nf o r m ati o n ne eded t o v i e w t he i m ag e s . Al t ho ugh Renf r o e de ni e d t hathe w as respon sibl e f o rt he i m ag e s ’di s t r ibut i o n, t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti m pl i c i t l y c o nc l ude d t hathi s t e s t i m o ny w a s i n cred ib l e. W e g ive du e d eferen ce to th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s cred ib i l i ty d e te r m in a tio n s . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. S o lis , 2 9 9 F .3 d4 2 0 , 4 3 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). L ikew i se, R en f

roe h a s n o t sh o w n th a t th e d istr ict co u rt im p ro p e rlyu t ili zed h i s pri or convic t i on f

or possessi on of chi l d pornograp h y as a basi s f or t h e up w ard d e p a r t u r e . A lt h o u g h th e c o u r tu s e dth e p r io rc o n v ic t io n to c a lc u la t e R e n fr o e ’s
c r i m i nalhi s t o r y, t he PSR’ s c r i m i nalhi s t o r y c al c ul at i o n di d no t f ul l y c ap t ur e t he sentenci n g i m pl i cat i on s of t h e convic t i on . T h e cr i m i n alhi st ory poi n t s assi gn ed f or t h e convi ct i on di d n otaccoun tf or t h e speci f

i c c h aract eri st i cs of

the of fen se,N o. 08- 30703

4 Renf r o e ’ s a ppa r e ntfail ur e t o b e de t e r r e d b y hi s pr i or c o nvi c t i o n, a nd t he ap pa rent s i m i l ari t i es bet w een R en f roe’ s pri or c on vi ct i on a nd the i n st an tof fen se. S ee§ 3 5 5 3 (a )( 2 ). T h u s , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a tth e d is t r ic tc o u r tr e li e do n R e n fr o e ’s p r io r c o n v ic t io n , a n d t h a t o ffe n s e a lr e a d y w a s a c c o u n t e d fo r b yR e n fr o e ’s
c r im in a l h is to r y , su c h re lia n c e w a s n o t im p r o p e r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ran t ley , 5 3 7 F . 3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 0 (5 t h C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s c o n s id e r a t io n o f R e n fr o e ’s pr i o r c o nvi c t i o n as a ba s i s f o r hi s upwar d de pa r t ur e al s o w as n oti nc o ns i s t e nt
w i t h t h e t erm s of h i s pl ea agreem en t . A ccor di n gl y, R en f roe has fai l ed to show t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o de pa r tw as a n a bus e o f di s c r e t i o n. R en f roe al so c h al l e nge s thee xt e nto f the di st ri ctcourt ’ s up w ard d epa rt u re. R enf r oe as se r t s t hatt he 360- m ont h se nt enc e i m pos ed by t he di st r i c tc our tw as greatert h an necessary t o ach i eve t h e sentenci n g obj ect ives of § 355 3( a)
. R en f roe a s s e r t s t hatt he di st r i c tc our ti m pro per l y bal ance d t he § 3553( a) fac t or s, and t hat t he s t at ut or y m i ni m um s en t enc e o f 15 y ear s of

i m pri so nm entw oul d have sati sf i ed the sentenci n g goals
. R en f roe als o a rgues t h at the extent of t h e di st ri ct c o ur t ’ s depa rt u re w as un reasona bl e un der § 3553 ( a) ( 6) becau se i tdi d no ta c c o unt fo rth e n e e d t o a v o idu n w a r r a n te ds e n te n c in gd is p a r itie s a m o n gs im ila r ly
s itu a te dd e fe n d a n ts . R e n fr o e h a s fa il e dto d e m o n s t r a t e th a tth e e x t e n to f t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s de pa r t ur e w as u nr e as o nab l e . Al t ho ught he 3 60

- m o nt h s t at ut o r y m ax i m um se nt enc e w as doubl e t he advi so r y gui del i nes r ange of 180 m ont hs, t hi s c our thas
a ffir m e d s im ila ru p w a r dd e p a r tu r e s o rn o n -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e s . S ee B ran t ley , 5 3 7 F .3 da t 3 4 8 -5 0 ; Un ited S ta tes v . S m ith , 4 1 7 F .3d 4 8 3 , 4 9 2 -9 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W hi l e t he § 35 53 ( a) fac t o r s m ay hav e w e i ghe d i n fav o r o f an i m po s i ng a l ow er se nt enc e, t he di st r i c t c our t c onc l uded t hat t he s t at ut or y m axi m um s ent enc e w as pr o pe rund e rt he ci r c um s t anc e s . The po s s ibi l i t y t hatt hi s c o ur tm i ghtc o nc l ude th a t a d iffe r e n t s e n te n c e is a p p r o p r ia te is n o t s u ffic ie n t t o ju s tifyre v e r s a l. S ee G a ll , 128 S. C t . at597.N o. 08- 30703

5 R enf r oe al so has nots how n th a t th e ext entof t he depar t ure w as u n reasona bl e un der § 3553 ( a) ( 6)
. R en f roe’ s cita tion t o t h e average sen t en ces i m pos ed upon i ndi vi dual s c onvi c t ed of u nspec i f

i ed se xualof

fens es i s unavai l i ng. The s t at i s t i c s failt o s ho w t hatRenf r o e w as s e nt e nc e d d i f fe r en t l y t han a de fe nda ntw i t h as i m i l arre c o r d w ho w as fo und guil t y o f si m i l arc o nduc ta nd d o n o t estab l i sh tha t an y se n ten ci n g d i sp a ri ti es b etw ee n R en froe a n dde fen d a n ts c o n v ic te do f s im ila r c o n d u c t w e r e u n w a r r a n te d
. S ee§ 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v . Wi l l i ngh am , 497 F
. 3d 5 41, 5 44 ( 5th C i r. 2 007 )
. Fu rt h erm ore, t h e di st ri ctcourt corr ectlyca lcu la te da n dca re fu ll yre v i ew ed the G u i del i n es r an ge, w h i ch i n di cat es t h at itgave si gn i f

i can tconsi derati on t o t h e need t o avoi d u n w arran t ed d is p a r itie s . S ee G a ll , 128 S. C t . at598. AF F I RMED.