FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 28, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 52 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-2 09 15 -KMM -1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us HENRY WADE FINLEY, JR ., a.k .a. Henry

W ad e Fi nl ey , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen dant -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 8, 2 01 0) Befo re EDMONDSON, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Hen ry W ad e Fi nl ey

ap pe al s t he sen te nc e im

po se d fo ll owi ng hi s g ui lt y pl ea to kn owi ng ly tran sp orti ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy, in v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 22 52 (a), an d t ran sf

erri ng ob sc en e m at eri al to a m in or , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 47 0. The ch arg es ag ai ns t Fi nl ey aro se fro m

a si ng le in te rn etch atin whi ch Fin le y co m m un ic at edwith a n u nd erco ve r of fic er p os in g a s t he si ng le m othe r of a te ny ear- ol d g irl . Duri ng th e co nv ers at io n, Fi nl ey sp ok e o f en ga gi ng in sex with ch il dr en , in cl ud in g h is twel ve -y ear- ol d d au gh te r. He als o s ha redfif te enim ag es 1 of a y ou ng gi rl e ng ag in g i n s ex ua ll y ex pl ic itact iv it ie s wi th adul t m enan d en co ur ag edth e o ffi cer t o s ho w th e im ag es to he r daug ht er t o g au ge th e g irl ’s wil li ng ne ss to pa rti ci pa te . 2 Fo ll owi ng th e o nl in e co nv ers at io n, p ol ic e were abl e to lo cat e an d a rres t Fi nl ey in Okl ah om a. Altho ug h h e ad m it te d i n h is po st -arr es t s ta te m en ts to po li ce th athe ha d s en t the im ag es to th e u nd erco ve r of fic er, h e d en ie d h av in g a ny sex ua l co nt actwith amin or . Fin le y was c ha rg edwith t ran sp orti ng ch il d p orno gr ap hy and tra ns ferr in g o bs cen e m at eri al to a m in or . He pl ead edgu il ty w itho uta writ te n p le a ag reem en t. The pro ba ti on off

ic er d et erm in edFin le y ’s adv is ory gu id el in e ran ge to be In actua lity , Finley

has two adult childre n, neither of whom repor

ted any sexual abuse. 1 The imag es we re pa

rt of the “ Vicky” series of child pornography involving a te n-year 2 old gir l. 218 8 t o 2 35 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Fin le y

face d am an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e 3 of 5 years’ im

pr is on m en t an d ast atut ory m ax im um of 2 0 years’ im

pr is on m en t fo r th e § 22 52 off

en se , anda st atut ory

m ax im um of t eny ears ’ im

pr is on m en t fo r th e § 1 47 0 o ffen se . Fi nl ey ob jecte d t o t he gu id el in e cal cu la ti on s, ar gu in g tha t h e h adno pri or co nv ic ti on s fo r se xu al off en se s an d p res en te d alo w ris k o f rec id iv is m . He als o subm it te d t he res ul ts of apo lygrap h e xa m in at io n t o s ho w th athe ha d tru th fu ll y st at edth athe ha d n ev er en ga ge d i n s ex ua l co nt actwith am in or . He arg ue d t ha t a se nt en ce b etween63 an d 7 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t wo ul d b e su ffi ci en t b utno t gr eat er tha n n eces sa ry

to m eetth e se nt en ci ng go al s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). At t he se nt en ci ng he ari ng , he e xp la in edth athe su ffer edfro m bi po la r di so rd er, d ep res si on an d p os t-t rau m at ic stres s d is or de r an d t ha t h e was rece iv in g t he rap y . He arg ue d th ata se nt en ce wi th in th e cal cu la te d g ui de li ne ran ge was t oo ha rs h wh enhe ha d no t p ro du cedor e ng ag edin wid es pr eaddi st rib ut io n o f th e im ag es . He arg ue d t ha t § 2 G2.2 “ im

pe rm is si bl y

an d i ll og ic al ly ske ws s en te nc es forev en‘ av erag e’ The probation officer

grouped the two offe nses tog ether under U .S.S.G. § 3D1.2(c) a nd 3 deter mined the base offe nse leve l under the higher guideline, in this case § 2G2.2. T he probation office r then a dded enha

nceme nts for (1) the ag e of the minor, § 2G2.2(b)( 2); (2) the distribution of imag es to a minor, § 2G2.2(b)(3) (E); (3) imag es of sa distic or masochistic conduc t, § 2G2.2(b)( 4); (4) the use of a computer, § 2G 2.2(b)( 6); and (5) the number of imag es involved, § 2G2.2(b)( 7)(D) . Wit h a 3-le vel re duction for a cceptance of re sponsibili ty , the total adjusted offe nse leve l was 36. 3de fen da nt s t o t he up pe r en d o f th e st atut ory ran ge . . . th us bl urrin g the di st in ct io ns be twee n the lea stan d wo rs t o ffen de rs .” Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Bei erman n , 59 9 F . Supp . 2d10 87 (N.D. Iowa 2 00 9) ). The di stric t co urt co ns id eredth e g ui de li ne cal cu la ti on s, Fi nl ey ’s arg um en ts , an d t he sen te nc in g fa ct or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), an d i m po se d asen te nc e o f 18 8 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Inso do in g, the co urt n ot edth e n atur e an d s ev eri ty of th e cri m es as we ll as the co nt inui ng ps y ch ol og ic al ha rm to th e v ic ti m s. Th e co urt st at edth ata se nt en ce wi th in th e g ui de li ne ran ge was s uf fic ie ntto puni shFin le y an d d et er fu tu re cr im in al co nduc t. On ap pe al , Fin le y

arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt i m po se d a n u nr eas on ab le se nt en ce b ecau se itrel ie d e xc lu si ve ly on t he advi so ry gu id el in e ran ge as cal cu la te d u nd er § 2G2 .2 an d i gn or edth e o th er s en te nc in g fa ct or s l is te d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Fi nl ey co nt en ds th atth e se nt en ce i m po se d d oe s n otco m

po rt with t he di rect iv es of § 35 53 (a) b ecau se he pro vi de d t he co urt wi th in co nt ro ve rti bl e “ sc ie nt ifi c ev id en ce” t ha t h e h adne ve r ab us eda ch il d, h as a lo w ris k o f rec id iv is m , andis a lo w ris k t o the co m m un it y . Fin le y

arg ue s t ha t h is ba ck gr ou ndan d t he cir cu m st an ces su rro un di ng hi s arres t d o n otwarran t s uc h a se ve re s en te nc e, an d h e m ai nt ai ns th atth e co urt i m po se d asen te nc e g reat er tha n ne ces sa ry to ach ie ve § 3 55 3( a)’s o bjec ti ve s. In supp ort, h e ci te s s ev eral othe r 4cas es in vo lv in g § 22 52 in whi chdi st ric t co urts sen te nc edde fen da nt s b el ow t he

gu id el in e ran ge . W e rev ie w th e subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e u nd er a “ de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard .” Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 6, 5 1 (2 00 7) ; Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Fin le y be ars th e bu rd enof s ho win g t ha t h is sen te nc e is un reas on ab le . Uni te d Sta tes v. Th oma s , 44 6 F .3d13 48 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le if, un de r th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , itach ie ve s t he pu rp os es of § 35 53 (a). Pugh , 51 5 F .3dat 1 19 1. Se ct io n 3 55 3( a) p ro vi de s tha t the sen te nc e im po se d m us t refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of the off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t pu ni sh m en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er cr im in al co nduc t, p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m futur e cri m in al co nduc t b y

th e d efen da nt , andpro vi de th e d efen da ntwith n eed ed educ at io na l o r vo cat io na l trai ni ng or m ed ic al care . 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). Befo re i m

po si ng a se nt en ce, the co urt m us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of the off

en se , th e h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , th e ki nd s o f se nt en ces av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge , th e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , th e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d se nt en ci ng di sp ari ti es , andth e n eedto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ). 5“ The weig htto be acco rd edan y gi ve n § 35 53 (a) fa ct oris a m at te r co m m it te d t o t he so un d d is cret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt[,]” an d “ [w]e will no t subs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he rel ev an t fa ct or s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Amede o , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 32 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (ci ta ti onom it te d) . W e h av e al so reco gn iz edth at“ [c]hi ldsex cri m es are am on g t he m os t eg reg io us an d d es pi cab le of so ci et al an d c riminal off en se s.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ir ey , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 12 06 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) ( en ba nc ). Here, the di st ric t co urt co ns id eredall of t he arg um en ts subm it te d, the fact or s s etforth in § 3 55 3( a), the pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort, an d t he vi ct im -impactst at em en ts . In d et erm in in g t he ul ti m at e se nt en ce t o i m po se , th e co urt al so co ns id eredFin le y ’s bac kg ro un d andhi s p ol ic y arg um en ts ag ai ns t the se nt en ci ng gu id el in e ran ge . Butaft er co ns id eri ng Fin le y ’s hi st ory an d ch arac te ris ti cs , th e co urt fo un d t ha t the ser io us ne ss of t he off en se an d t he vi ct im -impactst at em en ts requi reda le ng th y sen te nc e. Indo in g s o, the co urt ap pr op ria te ly con si de redth e fac to rs an d a ch ie ve d t he pu rp os es of s en te nc in g s et fo rth in§ 3 55 3( a). Mo reo ve r, we no te th atth e se nt en ce i m po se d was at t he lo w en d o f th e g ui de li ne ran ge an d wel l b el ow t he st atut ory m ax im um of 2 0 years’ im pr is on m en t. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 2 25 2( b) (1 ). Fi na ll y , th e d is tri ctco urt re jecte d F in le y ’s arg um en t tha t the sen te nc in g 6gu id el in e ap pl ic ab le to hi s cr im es , § 2 G2.2 , sh ou ldcarry li tt le weig htbe cau se it la ck edem

pi ric al ev id en ce. Altho ug h u nd er Ki mbr ou gh v. Uni te d Sta tes , 55 2 U.S. 85 , 10 9- 10 (20 07 ), a d is tri ctco urt m ay co ns id er a l ackof e m

pi ric al ba si s as a reas onto ex erci se it s d is cret io n a ndim po se a se nt en ce b el ow t he gu id el in e ran ge , itdo es no t re qu ire th e co urt t o c at eg or ic al ly dis reg ardth e g ui de li ne s. Uni te d St at es v. Rod

ge rs , 61 0 F .3d97 5, 9 77 -7 8 (7 th Cir . 20 10 ); se e a ls o Pugh , 51 5 F .3d at12 01 n.1 5 (e xp la in in g t ha t the ch il d- po rn og rap hy gu id el in es do no t s uf fer fr om th e sa m e d efi ci en ci es as t he crac k- co cai ne gu id el in es ad dr es se d i n Ki mbr ou gh ). Giv enth e fac ts of t hi s ca se , we can no t s ay th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n by the m anne r in whi ch itweig he d the § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Fi ne ly’ s s en te nc e is AFFIRMED.

7