United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2916

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Amelia Marie Spiotto

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith

____________

Submitted: September 24, 2018

Filed: December 27, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Amelia Marie Spiotto pled guilty to two counts of producing child pornography

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e). The district court1

 sentenced her to 360

1

The Honorable P. K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 
months on each count, to be served consecutively. Spiotto appeals, asserting the

district court abused its discretion and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. 

Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

Spiotto’s victims are two infants—three and 11 months old. The three-monthold, Spiotto arranged to watch for an hour. Spiotto performed oral sex on the baby

and videotaped it. A few days later, her co-defendant made arrangements with the

mother of the 11-month old to leave her with Spiotto for 30 minutes, which gave her

the opportunity to record another assault. Spiotto used a thermometer to penetrate the

infant vaginally and anally, and fondled the infant’s genitals—all videotaped as the

infant struggled to get away. She then left the infant girl with her co-defendant so he

could rape her while Spiotto took her mother shopping. In her recordings, Spiotto

declares how much she enjoyed sexually assaulting the infants.

Three forensic psychologists diagnosed Spiotto with borderline personality

disorder. Two of the examinations were performed by Federal Bureau of Prisons

psychologists who determined she was competent to assist in her defense and to stand

trial, and that she understood the nature, quality and consequences of her acts at the

time of the offense. The third psychologist, Dr. Benjamin Silber, testified at the

sentencing hearing. He stated that Spiotto fits the profile of female sex offenders: 

socially isolated, economically disadvantaged, younger, less educated, with

depression, anxiety, substance abuse problems, and poor coping skills. She also had

an accomplice—her co-defendant—with whom she was in an intimate relationship,

preserved by their involvement in sex abuse. Dr. Silber testified that Spiotto was fully

aware that her acts were wrong, and that borderline personality disorder does not

diminish culpability for criminal acts. 

The court considered the 3553(a) factors, including the nature and

circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need

to impose a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offense, provides just

-2-
punishment and a deterrent, and avoids unwarranted disparities in sentencing for

similar offenses. The court then stated:

When you look at the nature and the circumstances of the offense here,

there is no question in my mind, from reviewing the evidence that the

government has presented, primarily the factual basis for the change of

plea and also in the Pre-sentence Investigation Report, that Miss Spiotto

had the requisite mental intent to knowingly, wilfully commit serious

criminal offenses, not only the offenses to which she was convicted of,

but other offenses of assault, battery, rape. What makes this – these

offenses particularly egregious in regard to the nature and the

circumstances of the offense is that other individuals who she knew, who

she betrayed, entrusted their children to her. The victim who spoke here

today provided a Victim Impact Statement that is in the Pre-sentence

Investigation Report. The victimization here is beyond what occurs in a

normal case. Now, the actual victims of the offense, we have a 3-month

old and 11-month old that were the actual victims of the offense, but the

victimization of their families, the impact it's had on their lives is

pervasive and far-reaching. And the Court believes that in the number of

child pornography cases that it has seen, that the nature and

circumstances of this offense are one which, other than her co-defendant,

I've never seen before where not only are minors victimized and used to

produce child pornography, but the planning involved to commit these

crimes, the way these crimes were carried out shows that she had the

requisite mental intent to knowingly, wilfully, and intentionally carry out

these criminal offenses. So the Court believes a sentence according to the

Sentencing Guidelines is the appropriate sentence in this case.

Spiotto claims the sentence imposed by the district court is more severe than

reasonable under the circumstances. She argues the district court failed to give

significant weight to her mental condition. To the contrary, the court weighed the

testimony about Spiotto’s borderline personality disorder and her profile, and

determined a variance was not warranted because they are not unique to her situation,

but are characteristics found in many criminal cases. 

-3-
This court reviews the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of

discretion. United States v. Waters, 883 F.3d 1022, 1028 (8th Cir. 2018). The district

court “abuses its discretion when it (1) fails to consider a relevant factor that should

have received significant weight; (2) gives significant weight to an improper or

irrelevant factor; or (3) considers only the appropriate factors but in weighing those

factors commits a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455,

461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). The district judge must consider the § 3553(a) factors

to determine the appropriate sentence, but does not need to mechanically recite the

factors in the record. Id. “A sentence within the guidelines range is presumptively

reasonable on appeal.” United States v. Garcia, 512 F.3d 1004, 1006 (8th Cir. 2008),

citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007). 

Spiotto’s offense level of 52 exceeds the guidelines’ level of 43, resulting in a

sentencing range over the statutory maximum. The district court properly adjusted it

to 720 months, the statutory maximum. The court reasoned that the seriousness of

Spiotto’s crimes justified a sentence at the statutory maximum, effectively a life

sentence. See United States v. Davenport,___F.3d___, 2018 WL 6579178, *4 (8th

Cir. Dec. 14, 2018) (affirming sentence of 840 months where defendant sexually

abused his daughter and shared explicit images he took of her); United States v.

Demeyer, 665 F.3d 1374, 1374–75 (8th Cir. 2012) (affirming a sentence for 1,440

months where the defendant photographed and shared explicit images of his

daughter); United States v. Betcher, 534 F.3d 820, 823, 827–28 (8th Cir. 2008)

(upholding a 9,000-month sentence where the defendant photographed and shared

explicit images of his granddaughters). The sentence was substantively reasonable. 

* * * * * * * 

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

-4-