[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-14115

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cr-00047-CDL-MSH-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

YANCY CRAFT, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(July 23, 2014)

Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 13-14115 Date Filed: 07/23/2014 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Appellant Yancy Craft pled guilty to one count of knowingly receiving child 

pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A). In exchange for Craft’s 

guilty plea, the Government stipulated in a written plea agreement that, for 

purposes of sentencing, Craft possessed three images of child pornography. 

However, subsequent forensic examination of Craft’s computer and hard drives 

revealed more than 3,900 prohibited images. Consequently, in preparing the 

presentence investigation report, the probation officer applied a five-level 

enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) because Craft’s offense involved 

600 or more images. The § 2G2.2(b)(7)(D) enhancement, together with other 

adjustments and Craft’s criminal history category of I, yielded an advisory 

guidelines range of 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment. At sentencing, Craft asked 

the district court to accept the stipulation in the plea agreement and sentence him 

based on his possession of three images. The district court declined to accept the 

stipulation and sentenced Craft to 151 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Craft 

argues the district court should not have sentenced him based on his possession of 

more than 3,900 images of child pornography but, instead, should have accepted 

the stipulation in the plea agreement and sentenced him based on only three 

images. 

Case: 13-14115 Date Filed: 07/23/2014 Page: 2 of 3 
3

The district court did not err by declining to accept the stipulation in Craft’s 

plea agreement.1

 We have explained that, in calculating a defendant’s sentence, 

the district court is not bound by the parties’ stipulations. United States v. Forbes, 

888 F.2d 752, 754 (11th Cir. 1989). The Guidelines also provide that “[t]he court 

is not bound by [the parties’] stipulation, but may with the aid of the presentence 

report, determine the facts relevant to sentencing.” U.S.S.G. § 6B1.4. As the 

guidelines commentary notes, “the court cannot rely exclusively upon stipulations 

in ascertaining the factors relevant to the determination of sentence.” U.S.S.G. 

§ 6B1.4 (commentary). “Rather, in determining the factual basis for the sentence, 

the court will consider the stipulation, together with the results of the presentence 

investigation, and any other relevant information.” Id. In calculating Craft’s 

sentence, the district court considered the stipulation, together with other relevant 

information, including the results of the presentence investigation and a forensic 

analysis which revealed that Craft possessed more than 3,900 images of child 

pornography. The court did not err in its application of the Guidelines and we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 1 “[I]n assessing a district court’s imposition of an offense-level enhancement, we review 

the court’s findings of fact for clear error and its application of the Sentencing Guidelines de 

novo.” United States v. Lopez-Garcia, 565 F.3d 1306, 1313 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Case: 13-14115 Date Filed: 07/23/2014 Page: 3 of 3