# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 31 62

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ro ge r Bat es

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F t. Sm it h

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 8, 2 01 5 Fi le d: Ju ne 18 , 20 15 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Ro ge r Ly nn Bat es pl ed gu il ty to two co un ts of pr od uc in g ch il d po rn og rap hy in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 22 51 (a ) a n d 22 51 (e). The di st ric t co ur t im po se d th e 1

The Hon or ab le P.K. Hol m es III, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.m ax im

um 72 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Bat es ap pe al s, cl a i mi n g hi s se nt en ce is

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Hav in g juris di ct io n un de r 28 U.S.C. § 12 91
, th is co ur t affi rm s.

Bat es as se rts no pr oc ed ur al erro r. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Feems te r , 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ), qu ot in g Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7) (rev ie win g co ur t “ m

us t fir st en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d n o si gn ifi can t
pr oc ed ur al erro r.

. . .”). Thi s co ur t rev ie ws th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of th e

se nt en ce fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Se e Gal l
, 55 2 U.S. at 51

. An ab us e of di sc ret io n

oc cu rs if t h e di st ric t co ur t “ (1 ) fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve

rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht ; (2 ) gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ; or (3 ) co ns id ers on ly th e ap p r o p r i a t e f act or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s

co m m it s a c le ar er ro r of

jud gm en t.” Feems te r , 57 2 F .3d at 4 61

.

The pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) cal cu la te d a to ta l of fen se le ve l of
49
, m ak in g li fe im

pr is on m en t th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. The PSR ex pl ai ne d, ho wev er, th at be cau se th e st at ut or y m ax im um (3 60 m on th s pe r co un t) is le ss th an l ife im pr is on m en t, th e s t a t ut or y m ax im um se nt en ce of 72 0 m on th s be co m es th e Gui de li ne s s en te nc e.

Bat es arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co u r t a b u se d it s di sc ret io n by im po si ng a 72 0-

m on t h s e n te nc e. He in vo ke s a Sev en th Ci rcu it cas e up ho ld in g a be lo w-Gui de li ne s

se nt en ce as wit hi n th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ret io n to va ry “ ba se d o n a po li cy di sa gr eem en t.” Se e Uni te d St at es v. Pri ce , 77 5 F.3 d 82 8, 84 0 (7 th Ci r. 20 14 ), qu ot in g Sp ea rs v. Uni te d St at es , 55 5 U.S. 26 1, 26 4 (2 00 9)

. Thi s cas e ne it he r co nt ro ls no r is

ap po si te en ou gh to pr ov e an ab us e of d i s c r e t i on he re. Bec au se th e st at ut or y

m ax im um (th e Gui de li ne s ran ge ) m ay be pr es um ed reas on ab le
, th is co ur t de fers to th e di st ric t co ur t. Se e U

n i t ed St at es v. La za rs ki
, 56 0 F.3 d 73 1, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s ta ti ng th at whe n th e bo tt om of th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge is ab ov e

-2

-th e st at ut or y m ax im um se nt en ce, “ th e s ta tu to ry m ax im um se nt en ce is pr es um ed

reas on ab le ”).

Bat es al so as se rts a se n t e n c i n g di sp ari ty, cl ai m in g pe rp et rat or s of m or e
eg reg io us cri m es ha ve rece i v ed si m il ar se nt en ces , c it in g Uni te d St at es v. Demeye r , 66 5 F .3d 13 74 , 13 74 -7 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (p er cu ria m ). Bat es di d n ot rai se th is is su e
at se nt en ci ng , bu t th e di st ric t co ur t no te d: “ The co ur t m us t al so i mpo se a se nt en ce th at av oi ds un warra nt ed se nt en ce di sp ari ti es am on g de fen da nt s wit h si m il ar reco rd s who ha ve be en fo un d gu il ty of si m il ar co nd uc t.” Se e Uni te d St at es v. Bau gh man , 59 7
F e d

. A p p x. 89 9, 89 9- 90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (p er cu ria m ) (u ph ol di ng th e st at ut or y

m ax im um 72 0- m on th se nt en ce fo r a two -co un t co nv ic ti on of ch i l d

- p or no gr ap hy

pr od uc ti on , reject in g th e de fen da nt ’s cl ai m th at hi s cri m e was no t as se rio us as ot he r ch il d po rn og rap hy of

fen se s)

. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered an d weig he d th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Bor ro meo , 65 7 F.3 d 75 4, 75 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ The di st ric t co ur t ha s wid e la ti tu de to weig h th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in each cas e an d

a s s i g n so m e fact or s gr eat er weig ht th an ot he rs in de te rm in in g an ap pr op ria t e

se nt en ce.”)

. * * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-