FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 26 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cr-0 03 64 -TCB-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHARLIE B. FLOW ERS, II, a.k .a. Bil lythe cl ub , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st23 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Afte r pl ead in g g ui lt y , Cha rli e Fl owe rs ap pe al s h is 24 0- m on th sen te nc e fo r di st rib ut io n o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a)( 2) . Atse nt en ci ng , th e d is tri ctco urt ca lc ul at edanadvi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of 2 35 to 29 3 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t an d i m

po se d t he st atut ory

m ax im um sen te nc e o f 24 0 m on th s. Onap pe al , Flo wers arg ue s t ha t thi s s en te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e fac to rs in18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Afte r rev ie w, we affi rm . W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce a d is tri ctco urt i m po se s fo r rea so nabl en es s u nd er a de fere nt ia l ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 41 , 12 8 S . Ct. 5 86 , 59 1 (2 00 7) . W e lo okfir stat wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d an y si gn ifi can t p ro cedur al erro r an d t he n a t wh ethe r th e se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly un reas on ab le gi ve n t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces an d the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. 1 Uni te d S ta te s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 11 90 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). “ [W] e wil l n ot se co ndgu es s t he weig ht(or lac k t he reo f) tha t the [di st ric t co urt] acco rd edto a gi ve n fa ct or. . . as lo ng as t he sen te nc e u lt im at el y im po se d i s re as on ab le inli gh t of all th e ci rcu m st an ces pre se nt ed .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sni pe s, 6 11 F.3d85 5, 8 72

The § 3553(a) fa ctors include: ( 1) the nature a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the 1 history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d to refle ct the seriousness of the off ense, to promote respe ct for thelaw, and to pr ovide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need f or deter renc e; (4) the need to pr otect the public; (5) the nee d to provide the de fenda nt with needed educational or vocational trainingor medica l car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable; (7) the SentencingGuidelines ra

ng e; (8) pe rtinent policy

statements of the Sente ncingCommi ssion; (9) the nee d to avoid unwar

rante d sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) the need to provide re stitut ion to victims. 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) . 2(1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (qu ot at io n m ark s, al te rat io n a ndem ph as is om it te d) , cert . den ie d,

__ _ S . Ct. _

__ , 79 U.S.L.W . 35 22 (U.S. Ju n. 6 , 20 11 ) (No . 10 -1 07 5) . The pa rty chal le ng in g the sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g t he sen te nc e is un reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Un it edSta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Altho ug h we d o n otauto m at ic al ly pr es um e a s en te nc e wit hi n the gu id el in es ran ge is reas on ab le , we ord in ari ly exp ect su ch a se nt en ce t o b e rea so nabl e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun t, 5 26 F.3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Here, Fl owe rs ha s n otsh own th athi s 2 40 -m on th sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . 2 Incal cu la ti ng Flo wers ’s adv is ory gu id el in es ran ge of 2 35 to 29 3 m on th s, th e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d, i nt er al ia , a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 (b )(6 ), be cau se th e o ffen se in vo lv edth e u se of aco m pu te r to di st rib ut e th e ch il d p orno gr ap hy anda fi ve -le ve l en ha nc em en t, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2 G2.2 (b )(7 )(D), b ecau se th e o ffen se in vo lv ed60 0 o r m or e im ag es . Flo wers arg ue s t ha t a d is tri ctco urt’s re li an ce o n t he se gu id el in e p ro vi si on s re nd eredhi s se nt en ce u nr eas on ab le be cau se th es e p ro vi si on s d o n otrefl ectem pi ric al da taan d na ti on al ex pe rie nc e.

Flowe rs does not argue that his sentenc e wa s proce durally unrea sonable a

nd thus 2 abandons this claim. See United States v. J ernig an, 341 F .3d at 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003). 3Thi s C ou rt h as pre vi ou sl y reject edth is arg um en t. See Pu gh , 51 5 F .3dat 12 01 n.1 5. Th us , th e fac t tha t the di st ric t co urt ap pl ie d t he se § 2 G2.2 en ha nc em en ts to cal cu la te th e advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge do es no t re nd er Fl owe rs ’s se nt en ce u nr eas on ab le . Nex t, Fl owe rs arg ue s t ha t the go ve rn m en t’s fa il ur e to pro se cu te hi s gi rlf rie nd , But le r, fo r he r in vo lv em en t i n d own lo ad in g c hi ldpo rn og rap hy creat ed anun warra nt edsen te nc in g d is pa rit y th atpro m ot es di sr es pe ctforth e la w. The di st ric t co urt i s re qu ire d “ to av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc e d is pa rit ie s among de fen da nt s wi th si m il ar re co rd s wh o h av e b een fou ndgu il ty of si m il ar co nduc t.” 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(6 ). Howev er, a s en te nc in g d is pa rity is no t “ un warra nt ed ” if th e in di vi du al s b ei ng co m pa redare n otsi m il arl y

si tu at ed . See Un it edSta te s v . Sp oe rk e, 56 8 F .3d12 36 , 12 52 (11 thCir . 20 09 ). Inth is cas e, Fl owe rs an d B ut le r were n otsi m il arl y si tu at ed . But le r was ne ve r pr os ecu te d n orco nv ic te d o f an y co nduc t, an d the co nduc t s he is all eg edto ha ve en ga ge d i n was no t s im il ar t o F lo wers ’s con du ct . The d is tri ctco urt sp eci fic al ly con si de redth is factat t he sen te nc in g h eari ng . The g ov ern m en t ex pl ai ne d t ha t Bu tl er was no t ch arg edbe cau se sh e h adon ly con su m edch il d po rn og rap hy (fewer tha n t enim ag es th atth e g ov ern m en t ch arac te riz edas “ po st pube sc en t . . . on -th e-ed ge ch il d p orno gr ap hy”), andha d n otdi st rib ut edit . 4Fl owe rs , on th e o th er h an d, h ad6,9 66 im ag es an d 5 30 vi de os of c hi ld

po rn og rap hy onhi s co m

pu te r, de pi ct in g s ex ua l co nduc t wi th in fan ts an d young ch il dr en , so m e in vo lv in g s ad is ti c o r m as oc hi st ic co nduc t, an d F lo wers di st rib ut ed hi s i m ag es an d v id eo s v iaa pe er-t o- pe er fi le sh ari ng pro gr am . There fo re, the re was no sen te nc in g d is pa rity be twee n F lo wers an d B ut le r, m uc h l es s an un warra nt edon e. Whi le th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d the st atut ory

m ax im um sen te nc e, th at se nt en ce i s wi th inth e ap pl ic ab le advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge an d i s s ub st an ti ve ly reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. As th e d is tri ctco urt s tre ss ed , Flo wers so ug ht“ on ly the y ou ng es t an d h ard es t m at eri al .” The d is tri ctco urt s ta te d t ha t i t co ul d n ot“ im ag in e an yth in g wo rs e” i n t erm s o f ch il d p orno gr ap hy tha n the im ag es Fl owe rs di st rib ut ed . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d tha t the qu an ti ty andqu al it y of t he im ag es Flo wers di st rib ut edwere “ so sh oc ki ng to th e co ns ci en ce an d s o u tt erl y rep ul si ve th at. . . if t he re ev er were a cas e whe re the m ax im um all owe d b y

. . . Co ng res s i n t he sen te nc e were app ro pr ia te , itis th is cas e.” Und er the ci rcu m st an ces , we can no t s ay th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to im po se th e st atut ory m ax im um 24 0- m on th sen te nc e was anab us e o f di sc ret io n. AFFIRMED.

5