[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-14431

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00213-MMH-JRK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EROLD MARTIN PANOPIO, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(December 15, 2020)

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 19-14431 Date Filed: 12/15/2020 Page: 1 of 6
2

Erold Martin Panopio appeals his 235-month sentence for attempted online 

enticement of a minor for illegal sexual activity, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).

After careful review of the parties’ briefs and the record, we affirm. 

I

A

In 2018, a mental health counselor for a 15-year-old girl, L.M., told police 

that L.M. had been communicating with older men. L.M.’s mother consented to the 

police searching her daughter’s phone, and the police uncovered hundreds of text 

messages with Mr. Panopio and Snapchat conversations with him. They also found 

a video of L.M., another 15-year-old girl, and Mr. Panopio engaging in sexual 

intercourse. 

In the text messages, Mr. Panopio had told L.M. he was 19 years old, though

he was actually 24 at the time. L.M. had shared with Mr. Panopio her mental health 

struggles and her mother’s cancer diagnosis. 

Authorities assumed L.M.’s online identity and began texting with Mr. 

Panopio. They arranged a meeting with Mr. Panopio under the pretense that he was 

meeting L.M. and a 13-year-old for sexual intercourse. Mr. Panopio drove to the 

meeting location, and he was arrested after he exited his vehicle. 

In April of 2019, Mr. Panopio pleaded guilty to attempted online enticement 

of a minor for illegal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). 

USCA11 Case: 19-14431 Date Filed: 12/15/2020 Page: 2 of 6
3

B

Prior to sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presentence investigation 

report that recommended a total offense of 36 and a criminal history category at I, 

with an advisory sentencing guidelines range of 188 to 235 months (life 

imprisonment was the statutory maximum term). That offense level included a fivelevel enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(b)(1) for a pattern of activity involving 

prohibited sexual conduct. Mr. Panopio objected to this enhancement because it was 

discretionary and he had only been charged with one count, but the district court 

disagreed and found the enhancement because the underlying offense involvedg a 

pattern of conduct with multiple victims. 

The district court ultimately adopted the proposed guideline calculations, and 

sentenced Mr. Panopio to 235 months of imprisonment and 15 years of supervised 

release. This appeal followed. 

II

Mr. Panopio challenges his sentence on Eighth Amendment grounds, but 

concedes that he did not raise an Eighth Amendment claim in the district court. We

review non-capital Eighth Amendment claims for plain error when a claim is raised 

for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Raad, 406 F.3d 1322, 1323 (11th 

Cir. 2005). Under this standard of review, a defendant must demonstrate that there 

was a plain or obvious error that affected his substantial rights, and that the error 

USCA11 Case: 19-14431 Date Filed: 12/15/2020 Page: 3 of 6
4

seriously affected the "fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial 

proceedings." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Generally, “[a]n 

error is not plain unless it is contrary to explicit statutory provisions or to on-point 

precedent in this Court or the Supreme Court.” United States v. Hoffman, 710 F.3d 

1228, 1232 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

III

Mr. Panopio argues that his 235-month sentence of imprisonment and 15-year 

term of supervised release violate the Eighth Amendment. He primarily relies on 

three Supreme Court decisions to argue that Eighth Amendment jurisprudence 

mitigating criminal penalties for juveniles should be extended to young adults. See 

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010); 

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). He also cites to scientific research on 

neurological development and maturation, as well as recent legislative reforms and 

model legislation that extend juvenile protections to adults under the age of 25. 

In response, the government contends that Mr. Panopio has not met his burden 

or cited any controlling authority to support his Eighth Amendment argument. The 

government also argues that the cases cited by Mr. Panopio are distinguishable 

because Mr. Panopio is not a juvenile and he was not sentenced to life imprisonment 

or death. Additionally, the government notes that Mr. Panopio’s sentence is within 

the limits imposed by statute and thus not violative of the Eighth Amendment. 

USCA11 Case: 19-14431 Date Filed: 12/15/2020 Page: 4 of 6
5

In evaluating an Eighth Amendment challenge in a noncapital case, we must 

first determine whether the sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate to the 

offense committed. See United Slates v. Carthen, 906 F .3d 1315, 1322 (11th Cir.

2018). The Eighth Amendment contains a narrow proportionality principle that 

applies to noncapital sentences, but it does not require strict proportionality between 

the sentence and the crime. See United States v. Smith, 967 F.3d 1196, 1214 (11th 

Cir. 2020). In general, a noncapital sentence imposed within statutory limits is not 

considered excessive or cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment. See United 

States v. Flanders, 752 F.3d 1317, 1343 (11th Cir. 2014). Cf. Solem v. Helm, 463 

U.S. 277, 297-303 (1983) (holding that a life sentence without the possibility of 

parole for a recidivist with seven underlying nonviolent felonies violated the Eighth 

Amendment).

Mr. Panopio has made no showing of disproportionality sufficient to establish 

plain error. His 235-month prison sentence and 15-year term of supervised release 

fall within the statutory and guideline imprisonment and supervised released 

guideline ranges. His sentence, given the underlying conduct, is not grossly 

disproportionate to his crime. 

In addition, Mr. Panopio has not cited to any binding precedent that 

demonstrates plain error. Though he cites to three cases, none are dispositive

because Mr. Panopio was not a juvenile when he was sentenced, and he was not 

USCA11 Case: 19-14431 Date Filed: 12/15/2020 Page: 5 of 6
6

sentenced to life imprisonment or death. See Miller, 567 U.S. at 489; Graham, 560 

U.S. at 82; Roper, 543 U.S. at 551. Mr. Panopio's argument that these cases should 

be extended to young adults, without citation to any binding precedent, is insufficient 

to show that the district court committed plain error. See, e.g., United States v. 

Lange, 862 F.3d 1290, 1296 (11th Cir. 2017). Furthermore, the district court 

expressly considered Mr. Panopio’s youthful age when determining his sentence. 

Mr. Panopio has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the district 

court committed plain error under the Eighth Amendment in sentencing him. 

Accordingly, his sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-14431 Date Filed: 12/15/2020 Page: 6 of 6