FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 9, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14871 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 2 2 5 - C R - T - 2 4 MAP U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J O S E P H H A Y N E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 9, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: J os e ph H a y ne s appe a l s hi s 78- m onth s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d upon r e s e nt e nc i ng,2

f orknow i ngl y a tt e m pt i ng t o e nt i c e am i nort o e nga ge i n as e xua l a c tby us i ng a f a c i l i ty o f i n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C . § 2 4 2 2 ( b ) . Af t e rr e v i e w, w e a f f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D H a y n e s , w h o w a s 4 7 y e a r s o ld a t th e tim e , c o n ta c te d a n d p artic ip a te d in onl i ne c ha t s w i th “ ka c i _f l_gur l , ” a n unde r c ove rF e de r a l B ur e au of I nve s t i ga t i on a ge ntpos i ng onl i ne a s a14- y e a r - ol d gi r l . H a y ne s di s c us s e d w i th “ K a c i , ” a m ong others , hi s des i re t o t ea ch her aboutse x and t o p er form vari ou s s exual ac t i vi t i es w i th h er . A j ury c on vi ct ed H ay nes of one coun tof kn ow i ng l y a tt em pt i ng t o ent i ce a m in o rto e n g a g e in as e x u a l a c t b y u s in g af a c ilityo f in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . A t h is f i r s ts e nt e nc i ng, H a y ne s obj e c t e d t o va r i ous s e nt e nc i ng e nha nc e m e nt s unde rthe S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ec om m ended i n h i s pre se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt ( “ P S I ” ) , i nc l udi ng a2- poi nte nha nc e m e ntf orundul yi nf

l ue nc i ng am i nor , pur s ua nt to U .S .S .G . § 2 A 3 .2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt o v e rru le d h is o b je c tio n s . W ith a to tal o ff

en se lev el o f 2 7 an d a c rim in al h isto ry ca teg o ry o f I , H ay n es ’s gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 70 t o 87 m onths . T he di s tr i c tc ourts e nt e nc e d H a y ne s t o a 78 -m on th sent ence . H a y n e s ap p e a le d h is s e n te n c e a n d c o n v ic tio n . T h is C o u rt a f f irm e d h is3

c onvi c t i on, butva c a t e d hi s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nde d f orr e s e nt e nc i ng i n l i ghtof U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . I n s o doi ng, the C ourtnot e d tha tthe r e w a s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

orthe di s tr i c tc ourtt o appl ythe U . S . S . G . § 2A 3. 2( b) ( 2) ( B ) e nha nc e m e nt , buttha tbyappl y i ng the e nha nc e m e nt un der am andat ory r egi m e, the di stri ctcourthad com m i tt ed const i tut i on al B oo ker e rr o r . T h e C o u rt c o n c lu d e d , th e r e f o r e , th a t “[ t]h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tly c a l c ul a t e d H a y ne s ’ s gui de l i ne s r a nge a s 70 t o 87 m onths a nd ne e d notr e vi s i tthe g u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n s . . . .” O n r e m a n d , H a y n e s c o n te s te d th e 2 - p o in t e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 2 A 3 .2 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) o n g r o u n d s th a t H a y n e s h a d n o t a c tu a llyin te n d e d to u n d u ly i nfl uence a mi no r. T he di stri ctcourtre m i nd ed H ay nes thati tw ou l d n otre consi der the gu i del i nes c al cul at i on s. H ay nes e xp l ai ned thathi s argum entw as di re ct ed to w a r d c o n s id e r a tio n o f th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s a n d im p o s in g ar e a s o n ab le s e nt e nc e . H a y ne s r e que s t e d the s t a tut orym a nda t orym i ni m um s e nt e nc e of 60 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. T he di stri ctcourtst at ed that , af t erconsi deri ng the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, i tw as in c lin e d , if

a n y th in g , to im p o s e as e n te n c e ab o v e th e a d v is o ryg u id e lin e s r a n g e . T h e d i stri ctco u rtn o t ed th ati th ad sp eci fi cal l y co n si d ered : (1 ) H ayn es’ s h i st o ry; (2) the se ri ou snes s of the offens e; and (3) the need t o p rom ot e r es pectfor the l awHay nes also argues that the district cour t improperly

applied the 2-point undue influence 1 of a minor enh anc ement pur suant to U .S. S.G . § 2A 3. 2(b) (2 )(B ). Ho wever, thi s is su eis fore closed by

the law- of-the- casedoctrine. SeeUnited States v. Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th Cir. 1996). This issue was raised in Hay nes’s fir st appeal. This Court concluded that there was suff icient evidenc e to support the § 2A3.2(b)(2) (B ) enha ncement and that the guidelines rang e had be en calculated c orre ctly . Moreover, our limited rema nd was solely

for the district court to consider

that correctly

calculated advisory

guidelines rang e and theother § 3553(a) factors in determininga re asonablesentenc e post-B ooker. 4 a n d to p r o v id e ju s t p u n is h m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e - im p o s e d a7 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e . H a y n e s f

ile d th is s e c o n d ap p e a l.

I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n appe a l , H a y ne s a r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtf

a i l e d t o a de qua t e l y e xpl a i n the r e a s ons f orthe s e nt e nc e i ti m pos e d or ac kn ow l edge H ay nes’ s argum ent s f or a l es se r s ent ence . 1 A ft er B o o k er, a d i stri ctco u rt , i n d et erm i n i n g a reaso n ab l e sen t en ce, m u st consi der the corre ct l y c al cul at ed advi sorygu i del i nes r ange and the § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 786 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A l though the di stri ctcourtm ustconsi der the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, “ no thi ng i n B oo ker or e l se w here re qu i re s the di stri ctcourtt o st at e on the re cord thati thas e xp l i ci t l y c on si dere d ea ch of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors or t o d i sc uss e ac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e vi e w ade f

e nda nt ’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e f orr e a s onabl e ne s s i n l i ghtof the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. U ni t ed S t at es v. W i l l i am s, 43 5 F . 3d 13 50 , 13 53 (11th C i r.5

20 06 ). T hi s “ [r ] evi ew for r ea sonabl enes s i s def er ent i al , ” and “ w hen the di stri ct c o u rt im p o s e s as e n te n c e w ith in th e a d v is o ryG u id e lin e s r a n g e , w e o r d in a r ilyw ill e x p e c t th a t c h o ic e to b e ar e a s o n ab le o n e .” T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 8 . “[ T ]h e p a rty w h o c h a lle n g e s th e s e n te n c e b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f e s tab lis h in g th a t th e s e n te n c e is un re as on abl e i n the l i gh tof bo th [the] re cord and the fa ct ors i n sec t i on 35 53 (a ). ” I d. H e r e , H a y n e s h a s n o t s h o w n th a t h is 7 8 - m o n th s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le . T he di s tr i c tc ourte xpl i c i t l y not e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the § 3553 f a c t or s a nd s p e c if ic a llya d d r e s s e d H a y n e s ’s h is to ry , th e n a tu r e a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f h is o f f e n s e a n d th e n e e d to p r o m o te r e s p e c t f o rth e la w a n d to p r o v id e ju s t p u n is h m e n t. S e e S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 9 - 3 0 ; 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id no t , and w as no tre qu i re d t o, di sc uss e ac h § 35 53 (a ) f ac t or or address every a r gum e ntur ge d by H a y ne s i n m i t i ga t i on. AF F I RME D.